THE PHILOSOPHY CLASS

383: The Utopia of the Free Market NEW PROJECT

2012-02-16T12:02:00.002+01:00

Today we start a new project with the title "The Utopia of the Free Market". Of course the current financial crisis makes the subject even more interesting.

However, something keeps itself hidden in a clever way by emphasizing especially the FINANCIAL aspect: we are not facing just a financial crisis, but a moral crisis.

"I am not a destroyer of companies, I am a liberator of companies. What it is all about, ladies and gentlemen, is that greed, for lack a better word, is good. Greed is legal. Greed works.

Greed clarifies, flows through and shapes the quintessence of evolution. Greed in all its forms, greed of life, money, love, knowledge, speeds up the progress of humanity."

These are the words of the notorious banker, Gordon Gekko in the movie Wallstreet (1987). How prophetic that movie was !!!

That we are dealing primarily with a moral crisis is clearly demonstrated by Greece. At the basis of its financial crisis is the general moral sense of responsibility with respect to their society.

They might kill me for this statement, but tax evasion and corruption in certain areas is in Greece such a common thing, it seems.

But there is more. One philosopher has been of great influence and stood at the cradle of the moral attitude, which has become such a common good among people, certainly people in finances: Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982) was a Russian - American philosopher, who developed a very personal philosophy: Objectivism.

But mostly she was a successful novelist, who wrote the thickest utopia ever, I think: "Atlas Shrugged" (1957), about a 600 pages. I have read it in preparation of this project.

This book is the capitalist utopia in a nutshell. In Europe the book is hardly known. Just recently I saw a Dutch translation in the bookstore. Maybe because there is a movie now too.

However, according to a survey of American readers, published in Time magazine, "Atlas Shrugged" is the second most important book of the 20th century. Only the Bible was more important.

The indirect and worldwide influence of Ayn Rand is impressive. One important reason is, that her most dedicated philosophical disciple was Allan Greenspan (1926).

Till 2006 he was the president of the Fed, the American Federal Reserve Bank, of which the monetary politics in this globalizing world are felt everywhere.

In this project I will begin with investigating and analyzing the meaning of Rand's philosophy with respect to the capitalist utopia.

We'll have a look in the historical background of the free market ideology and we'll meet a number of philosopher, who can elaborate on that.

To give you names: Aristotle, Thomas More, John Locke and of course Adam Smith and Jeremy Bentham. Not to forger Marx, Durkheim and Keynes.

I'll end the project with an analysis of the question in what way and to what extend we actually made the free market utopia work.

Many people think, that the free market is an objective process that nobody has imagined or invented. Nobody seems to be responsible for the ideology and utopia behind it.

And that is what we are going to find out: who is responsible?

But you'll have to wait for a little while. From 16 to 26 February I'll enjoy a nice vacation in RL. So, next class will be February 28.

The Discussion

[13:19] Farv Hallison: Greenspan changed his mind about Any Rand...Her philosophy cause the financial collapse.
[13:19] herman Bergson: yes yes..Farv, a desillusion....

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:21] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): That was short
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remakrs...plzz go ahead
[13:21] Mick Nerido: Free Market= supply and demand Theory?
[13:22] herman Bergson: Funny you say that merlin....
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: you have my condolences on having read atlas shrugged
[13:22] Jaelle Faerye: Thank you Herman
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes?
[13:22] Annie Brightstar (anniebrightstar): Thank you Herman
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes because the lecture was as long as any other lecture...
[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: isn't the opposite of the free market an utopia too?
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Druth..I KNOW what you mean....
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: wb Beertje
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I thought they were usually about 20 minutes
[13:23] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you
[13:23] herman Bergson: the plot is ok, but what all these people say is a horror..
[13:23] herman Bergson: no..max 10
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aaah ok
[13:23] druth Vlodovic: I find it funny that people try to sell selfishness as a viable "moral"
[13:24] Farv Hallison: we take 10 minutes saying hello to each other.
[13:24] druth Vlodovic: I suspect they do it in order to cause their victims to accept what they do
[13:24] herman Bergson: Atlas Shrugged is only bearable from an intellctual point of view....
[13:24] herman Bergson: in the sense that you have to have read it...
[13:24] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Herman, when you started off saying 'Greed is good' etc... Was that your view?
[13:24] herman Bergson: No Merlin it was a quote from the movie Wall Street
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): OK well I recognised that it was a quote
[13:25] herman Bergson: I accept that greed exists in us...
[13:25] Mistyowl Warrhol: I had it very clearly explained to me once, there is a big difference, in being selfish and taking care of self. When we are taking care of ourselves properly, that is good.. being selfish is not good.
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: greed is never good, just thinking about oneself cause of money
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: and to get all for yourself
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: thats greed
[13:25] Jaelle Faerye: bye all, sorry have to go
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Bye Jaelle
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: but thats how way too many thinks nowadays
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): tot ziens jaelle
[13:26] Mick Nerido: Greed envy sloth etc all not good...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Misty...big difference
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Pride
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): lol, thats another one
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: well, you don't want to go overboard into automatic martyrdom either
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I quite like Sloth myself :P
[13:27] herman Bergson: Sloth ???
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: but if you are to interact with others you should care for them at least a bit, in a society it is necessary to care for the society and it's members
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: very important
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Sloth=lazyness
[13:27] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Somehow I think there is a bigger picture
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Druth...and THAT is exactly the big problem at the moment...
[13:28] Mistyowl Warrhol: I am going to find myself not getting on one of my soap boxes, with this topic !!!!
[13:28] herman Bergson: Money isn't there to serve society...
[13:28] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): the future of civilization
[13:28] herman Bergson: money is there to make more money
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: no its to serve only the ones who already have it seem nowadays
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: take banks for ex
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...
[13:29] Mick Nerido: power corrupts us...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: now we have to pay to even get our payout from work out at least for the ones not using the internet
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: and everything goes down in the bank directors pocket
[13:29] herman Bergson: One of the complains here is that banks arent interested in their clients but only in their own interest..making money
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: before in time banks was for us, now we are for the banks instead
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: no good development at all and get worse and worse
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: the rich gets richer the poor poorer
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: Come to the USA.. We can teach you about GREED.
[13:30] herman Bergson: You need a bonus, Bejiita ㋡
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: actually one of the problems is that the bank doesn't have any real existence, the CEOs of the bank make decisions in "their" own interests and the bank itself can go hang, often
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha id wand to steal those bonuses and give to everyone
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: like Robin Hood
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: we'd really need someone like that today
[13:31] Farv Hallison: Obama is Robin Hood
[13:31] herman Bergson: Welcome back Alaya ㋡
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hmm i think obama is a not so bad guy , kind of nice
[13:31] Farv Hallison: hello Alaya, kiss
[13:31] herman Bergson: That is why the republicans want to hang him, Farv
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: like his attitudes in general i think
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: but not so involved in details
[13:31] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman , have to go...
[13:31] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): hi^^
[13:31] JFA (janfolkert.alter) is Offline
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick
[13:32] Farv Hallison: bye Mick
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: cu Mick
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bye
[13:32] Annie Brightstar (anniebrightstar): Apologis
[13:32] Mot Mann is Offline
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: I judge how well a politician by how fiercely the republican go after them.. So by that standard, Obama is a great Pres.
[13:33] oola Neruda: Obama IS good...
[13:33] herman Bergson: Good one Misty
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:34] herman Bergson: I think we will study some basic Tea Party believes here in class ourselves...
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and definitly much better then bush "world destroyer"
[13:34] herman Bergson: Ayn Rand will help us...
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: Obama's sin is he supports the EPA, which seriously, will cut into the profits of the polluting.. er, bad guys.
[13:34] herman Bergson: just take the title of one of her books "The Virtue of Selfishness"
[13:35] herman Bergson: I guess we better leave American national politics outside this philosophy class ^_^
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: its a global problem and the middle classes have to pay everything
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: I'm still trying to work up the necessary lack of sense to read my copy :(
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: try to keep it "philosophical" :)
[13:36] herman Bergson: I guess you have a point there Lizzy...
[13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL you can talk about us, if you dont mind some blood shed !!!
[13:36] herman Bergson: Let's keep it philosophical ㋡
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: the divide between "middle" and "low" classes seems to me to be a divide and conquer tactic by the powers that be
[13:37] Farv Hallison: From Greek philosophy to Greek demostrations in the 21 Century.
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: the middle classes have more wealth but much less time, and much more to lose, so they can be controlled if isolated
[13:37] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): what is the philosophy behind free market ideology?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well...one issue is indeed how to divide the wealth among the members of a society....
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: (For those of you that do not know me well, I live less than 50 miles from what was known as the "Bush Ranch". I am a liberal in the heart of Tea Party country.
[13:38] herman Bergson: ssssstttt Misty.. !!!!!
[13:38] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): hehe
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hahah
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: middle class is the only class who can pay, poor people can't pay and rich people save their money
[13:39] herman Bergson: I think we have a good subject for this project...
[13:39] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): i think that a bottle of milk is the same price for anybody
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: There is a difference in giving to others and assisting them.
[13:40] Farv Hallison: The tax code favors those in power by taxing them at a lower rate.
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well my friends, a new project is born....
[13:41] oola Neruda whispers: i think we need to include the role of propaganda in the
[13:41] herman Bergson: And from what I hear in this discussion...
[13:41] oola Neruda: "selling" of the financial situation
[13:41] herman Bergson: it can be a lot of intellectual fun....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: can be really interesting for sure
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: look forward to it
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: it will be exciting because we are all concerned actually
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): oh good. we usually go off-topic
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes exactly
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: It is not going to get boring, I dont think :-)
[13:41] druth Vlodovic: ah, I'd love to see an analysis done here on the effect of propaganda on people's thought processes, and their actions as part of a society
[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok then...thank you all for this healty kick-off....
[13:42] oola Neruda: do we consider Ayn Rand propaganda?
[13:42] oola Neruda: nowdays?
[13:42] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): lol
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: have a nice vacation herman!
[13:42] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Druth that sounds like one for Thothica
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: you're very daring herman, i hope you survive the project :)
[13:42] Annie Brightstar (anniebrightstar): Isn't it all simply like dogs with bones? Those dogs that have snatched the bones try and defend them as best they can. Those without try and steal off them.
[13:42] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): it is a old thing resurrected
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I'll have to suggest it to sim :)
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: Take care everyone.. I will bring bandaids and ointments for our next lecture :-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: I'll do my best Druth....!
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: i can say it gets my blood flowing for sure when i read about like here in sweden how the old people starve to death so that the owner of their care center can get a wealthy computer controlled home
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: when i read about that recently i really got mad
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: insane and this happens in sweden?
[13:43] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Something a bit like that in UK too
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: cause of a scandal company named carema
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes...the Free Market
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: it is a complete lack of proportion, the ability to assess costs to others is basic to morality
[13:44] herman Bergson: Our next target!
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you all!
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: they privaticed the elder care to them and it went a hell
[13:44] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): maybe it will turn into a flee market to pay depts
[13:44] Annie Brightstar (anniebrightstar): Thank you Herman
[13:44] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Thanks Herman
[13:44] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): byby herman
[13:44] Velvet (velvet.braham): Thank you
[13:44] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: aa have a good vacation now herman
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:44] Farv Hallison: Thank you Herman
[13:44] Mistyowl Warrhol: Well, in Texas, we just balanced our budget by withdrawing money from utility companies, from funds set aside to help seniors who could pay the bills..
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: looks forward to this for sure
[13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Bye everyone
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: and happy valentine
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: / \

382: The Mystery of the Brain concluded

2012-02-13T22:25:00.002+01:00

After 115 lectures on the brain it is time to come to a conclusion and the extensive study,which this project required has led me to a conclusion indeed.

It all began September 2010 !!!! Then I said this:
"For me this is going to be a special project. It is not just an academic presentation of a subject with many different points of view possible. It will be a personal stand. I will stand for a materialist theory of mind.

This means that the series of lectures I have scheduled will be a kind of argumentation to make my point. However, it is not my intention that at the end of the semester you all have to say: yes you are right.

The lectures and the research for them will be more of a test, a searching for the answer whether the materialist view is tenable or not, to clarify the arguments in favor and against this view."

My view on materialism is no longer the same as it was in 1976 due to my lectures. Everything we know about the brain, consciousness is causally reducible to brain processes;

and for that reason I deny that the ontological irreducibility of consciousness implies that consciousness is something ‘over and above’, something distinct from, its neurobiological base.

No, causally speaking, there is nothing there, except the neurobiology, which has a higher level feature of consciousness.

In a similar way there is nothing in the car engine except molecules, which have such higher level features as the solidity of the cylinder block, the shape of the piston, the firing of the spark plug, etc.

‘Consciousness’ does not name a distinct, separate phenomenon, something over and above its neurobiological base, rather it names a state that the neurobiological system can be in.

Just as the shape of the piston and the solidity of the cylinder block are not something over and above the molecular phenomena,

but are rather states of the system of molecules, so the consciousness of the brain is not something over and above the neuronal phenomena, but rather a state that the neuronal system is in.

This is how John Searle (1932 - …) states his view and it is a better view then my support of the Identity Theory in 1976 as my graduation thesis, in which mental states were semantically reduced to material states.

I still stand by the view that materialism is the correct metaphysics today and that there does not exist anything else but matter.

Matter has higher level features and one of those features is consciousness. The most important scientific problem of the present era is one that until recently most scientists did not regard as a suitable topic for scientific investigation at all.

It is simply this: How exactly do brain processes cause consciousness? Given our present models of brain functioning, it would be an answer to the question. "How do lower level neuronal firings at the synaptic connection cause all of our subjective experiences!

In other words, consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical. It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels.

I reject the view, that consciousness is something more than the neurological fetters of the brain like the property dualist does.

The property dualist means that in addition to all the neurobiological features of the brain, there is an extra, distinct, nonphysical feature of the brain;

whereas I mean that consciousness is a state the brain can be in, in the way that liquidity and solidity are states that water can be in.

This is the final lecture of The Mystery of the Brain project. For me it is not an endpoint, but, on the contrary, a real new startingpoint. I hope for you too.

The next project will be something totally different. The title is "The Utopia of the Free Market", the worldwide financial crisis from a philosophical perspective.

The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!!
[13:21] Agnos (agnos): Thank you Herman
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: have been interesting
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..the floor is yours
[13:22] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:22] Loo Zeta: :)
[13:22] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): thank you Herman:))
[13:22] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): free market oh boy
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have a thought on it
[13:22] herman Bergson: Go ahead Merlin
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): To me ... I can more easily accept there is something non-material about life itself, ...and biology
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: QWARKIEEEE
[13:23] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:23] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ☆*¨¨*:•.•:*¨* hallo hello hi holla *¨¨*:•.•:*¨*☆
[13:23] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): late guy
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes I know Merlin.....
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: just missed grand finale
[13:23] Jaelle Faerye: hi all, btw
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): taking lessons from you know who
[13:23] herman Bergson: this dualism is so deeply rooted in our culture...
[13:24] herman Bergson: It is everywhere...except in cognitive sciences and neurobiology...
[13:24] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Do you think that idea is very similar to conventional Dualism?
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: hello Jaelle hi Qwark
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: is there really a contradiction?
[13:24] herman Bergson: in what sense Lizzy?
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: consciousness is a quality
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: and not a matter, right?
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): thats how I understand it too
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes...like liquidity is a feature of H2o molecules
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Im a bit uneasy about that
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just look at liquidity....
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: why shoudln't exist a non material about life despite
[13:26] herman Bergson: molecules in a certain state, the lower micro system, generate a feature in a higher system...
[13:27] Loo Zeta: But at zero it is frozen, so changes consistency
[13:27] herman Bergson: under other conditions the water could be solid....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes cause the circumstances change
[13:27] Jarapanda Snook: given that the higher apes share 98% of our genes, their physical state is not unlike outs - would we regard them as conscious?
[13:27] Loo Zeta: yes
[13:27] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or vapor
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and molecules slow and bind to each other forming a solid
[13:27] herman Bergson: we have physics to explain this all to us...
[13:27] herman Bergson: the problem with consciousness from this perspective is,
[13:28] Loo Zeta: Apes have been shown to have conscious states
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: different liquids have different points depending on how tightly molecules bind
[13:28] herman Bergson: that it is a huge scientific challenge to find out
[13:28] Loo Zeta: They carry round dead young until they can separate
[13:28] herman Bergson: how our neurons can generate that feature we call consciousness....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: oxygen and hydrogen by themselves have very low binding forces , take several 100 degrees below 0 c to get them liquid
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: but even if you accept this physical model
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: there are new mysteries within it
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: so every snowflake has a different pattern
[13:29] herman Bergson: the basic idea is that it is a natural biological process that our brain generates consciousness....
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: despite the same aggregate state
[13:29] Jarapanda Snook: but I would not attribute consciousness to a few billion water molecles - whatever you can say about their biding powers
[13:30] herman Bergson: I never observed any consciousness in snowflakes...
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: lol
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:30] herman Bergson: I guess we better stick to biology here
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: i never get liquid consciousness
[13:30] Loo Zeta: :D
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: cause no biochemical processes going on between water molecules
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: water is stable
[13:30] Jarapanda Snook: there is always a tendency to suspect something metaphysical, even though I am a scientist
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: nonreactive
[13:30] herman Bergson: depends on how much wine you drank Sybyle :-))
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: can get liquid unconsciousness.. !
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Jara....I know the feeling..
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: that would be of there is bacteria in there but i dont thingc bacteria can feel anything
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: only single cells
[13:31] Mistyowl Warrhol: But the metaphysical, is that which has not been explained yet..
[13:32] Jarapanda Snook: so that is a paradox, then Herman? We cannot prove against the metaphysical
[13:32] herman Bergson: what do you mean Jara?
[13:32] herman Bergson: We can prove that dualists are wrong...
[13:33] herman Bergson: or at least lack the arguments to prove their case
[13:34] Jarapanda Snook: well - I see it as a paradox that we cannot prove scientifically any material link between consciousness and matter, but we suspect it to be the case, whereas we easily think there might be something of a higher power
[13:35] herman Bergson: Ahh…good point Jara....
[13:35] herman Bergson: The fact is that we observe the brain and what it does.....
[13:35] herman Bergson: there is no paradox here
[13:35] herman Bergson: It is just the fact that we simple don't know how those braincells fix it
[13:36] Jarapanda Snook: fair enough
[13:36] herman Bergson: and that is not so upsetting….
[13:36] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Many people who believe in this higher power are illogical
[13:36] herman Bergson: neuroscience is hardly 30 years old at the level it is now
[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): very young
[13:36] herman Bergson: besides that....when you look behind me at the picture...
[13:37] Loo Zeta: Sometimes you have to accept the illogical
[13:37] herman Bergson: we are developing technology only this very days....
[13:37] herman Bergson: it is all so new...
[13:37] Jarapanda Snook: I don't believe in a higher power, don't get me wrong, but it is difficult to see how a bunch of neurons can make me self aware
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: Just think what another 10 years can bring.
[13:38] herman Bergson: There is nothing illogical here, Loo, just the limitation of our knowledge of today in these matters
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Misty.....
[13:38] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): This bunch of neurons is quite a big bunch
[13:38] herman Bergson: the development of neurosciences is going so fast these days....
[13:39] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Look at the way digital data can express detail and subtlety
[13:39] Loo Zeta: I have melded science and faith for the last 30 odd years
[13:39] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): And even text made up of discreet letters
[13:39] Jarapanda Snook: interesting, Loo - what branch of science?
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes that stays an issue in our culture Loo
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: What if they can get the brain to heal itself like an infants.. well, not heal, but take over parts that are missing.
[13:39] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): seems to convey an infinite complexity
[13:40] herman Bergson: That already happens Misty....
[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): already doing that in a way misty
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: in adults?
[13:40] herman Bergson: the brain is not a static grey mass but highly flexible and adaptive
[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: there are more possible combinations of synapses in the human brain than atoms in the universe
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes in adults too
[13:41] herman Bergson: Oh that might be true Jara....
[13:41] Loo Zeta: I have a degree in health science, studied psychology and sociology applied to biological science
[13:41] Loo Zeta: I am also a commited Christian ... *now ducks*
[13:41] herman Bergson: The brain is the most complex organ in the known universe
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: I have seen a infant with a quarter of his brain removed at 2 weeks, and the opposite had completely taken over those functions by the time I saw him at 18 mo.. Adults can do that?
[13:41] herman Bergson: dotn duck Loo
[13:41] Jarapanda Snook: don't duck - no-ones throwing bricks in here!
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hehehe
[13:42] Loo Zeta: :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: The first one who dared I would ban immediately
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: throws a truckload of bricks
[13:42] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): lol
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:42] herman Bergson: Behave Bejiita :-)
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Looking for my snowballs, finding one big enough to hide a brick.
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: we can use the bricks for a church
[13:42] Jarapanda Snook: but I find it interesting... I am an atheist, and the more science i have encountered over the years the more committed an atheist I become
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Jara....
[13:43] Jarapanda Snook: to me religion is bout filling gaps in knowledge, and the more we learn the lees gaps we have
[13:44] herman Bergson: They once did a survey among the members of the Royal Academy of Science in England about the relation religion - science...
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: are you sure, Jara
[13:44] Jarapanda Snook: and i bet they were all religious lol
[13:44] herman Bergson: only 3% said to be religious
[13:44] Jarapanda Snook: oh right
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: the more I learn, the more gaps I am able to recognize
[13:44] herman Bergson: combined with scientific work
[13:44] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I see it more as a frontier than as gaps
[13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): a boundary between the known and the unknown
[13:45] herman Bergson: Welll there is a tendency of religion bashing these days...
[13:45] herman Bergson: Dawkins, Harris...guys like that
[13:45] herman Bergson: I dont know.....
[13:45] Jarapanda Snook: what do they say about it ?
[13:46] Loo Zeta: I am a midwife every day I observe the miracle of birth, I understand the biomedical feedback of respiration etc
[13:46] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Well some ppl do try to use religion to explain all the unknown stuff
[13:46] herman Bergson: I say about it that it is a bit arrogant....
[13:46] Loo Zeta: But sti it makes me cry at times, and I am an old cynic
[13:46] Jarapanda Snook: that's how i see it
[13:46] herman Bergson: as if we have all answers
[13:46] Jarapanda Snook: awww
[[13:46] herman Bergson: let me put it this way....
[13:46] herman Bergson: consciousness is a feature of the brain....
[13:46] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes herman, Im listening
[13:47] herman Bergson: those braincells do the trick....
[13:47] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think most ppl will agree that are forces in the universe that create and destroy, I think we all believe in that, just call it different names. We still acknowledge those forces of "nature".
[13:47] herman Bergson: We have hardly any idea how they do it
[13:47] herman Bergson: That is only the brain....
[13:48] herman Bergson: what about the rest of the universe....do we know exactly all features
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): not yet and maybe never
[13:48] Jarapanda Snook: BUT herman - back to my original point - our brains are similar to a monkey's, but what makes us self aware to such an extent?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Like they look for higgs particles....
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: Loo, anyone who has helped a new soul come into this life, will always have a diffrerent view of life in general.
[13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Jara…I dont know...nobody knows....but it is a scientific and emperical question
[13:49] Loo Zeta: We have a far more developed frontal lobe, which contains personality and conciousness
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes Loo, we know where we have put the stuff :-)
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: and another thing why are humans the only species that have a language, all the other beings just have a single sound they can emit
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: a bit hard for them to communicate
[13:49] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Surely though, apes and other mammals have just as much perception as we do
[13:50] Loo Zeta: I was a Chrisian before midwifery .... but it is more when those souls are lost and we do not have answers we seek beyond ourselves
[13:50] herman Bergson: but how that prefrontal lobe makes us aware...we don't know...only THAT it makes us aware of things
[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: but the material of their brains is the same material as ours...
[13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: a lot of animals use "speak'.. such as whales.
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: dogs bark cats meow but that is like our language would contain one single letter
[13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hey Mick.
[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: hi Mick
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: hi mick
[13:50] Mick Nerido: i got way laid
[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: Mick, you're late - very late ;-)
[13:50] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I think you missed it
[13:50] herman Bergson: The same as our, you say, Jara....
[13:51] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): another student of rodney
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: some animals can use different tone sequences at least
[13:51] herman Bergson: There is only one answer possible...
[13:51] herman Bergson: That can not be the case...for our brain produces consciousness in a very special way
[13:51] herman Bergson: So there must be something more...
[13:52] Jarapanda Snook: so there is something else..
[13:52] herman Bergson: something in which we differ from the chimpanse
[13:52] Jarapanda Snook: yep
[13:52] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Oh I don't think so
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): or any other animal
[13:52] herman Bergson: a scientific challenge, I would say
[13:52] Jarapanda Snook: is it just complexity?
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): possibly
[13:52] Jarapanda Snook: or wiring?
[13:52] herman Bergson: I would say YES, Jara
[13:53] herman Bergson: both I guess
[13:53] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): We have better logic etc, but I think our perceptions are the same
[13:53] Loo Zeta: Our perceptions are built on schematic experience ours are more complex
[13:54] herman Bergson: just a simple fact.....
[13:54] herman Bergson: we include time in our perceptions...
[13:54] herman Bergson: past present and future....animals dont, I guess
[13:54] Mick Nerido: Feb 11 2011 issue of ScienceNews "Eye on I" consciousness under the lense intersting read
[13:54] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I agree with that
[13:55] Loo Zeta: :)
[13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): except that if you include time, is it still perception or does it become deduction etc
[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: how do you know that - I would think that a migrating whale must have some perception of time?
[13:56] Loo Zeta: Well Whales are far superior in many ways
[13:56] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): their perception like birds is by the llight of the sun
[13:56] herman Bergson: Not neccessarily Jara...the whael just reacts on the temperatures of the ocean waters etc....
[13:56] Loo Zeta: magnetic ability
[13:56] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the sun
[13:56] herman Bergson: interacting with its environment triggers the impulses
[13:56] Loo Zeta: Sonar
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aa yes some animals seem to be able to use the earth's magnetic field to oriendt like we use a compass
[13:57] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): noooo
[13:57] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:57] herman Bergson: pigeons...
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: they have a built in one or something
[13:57] Jarapanda Snook: if it were brain size alone that was the precursor if consciousness then Whales must be the first in line
[13:57] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Herman, what you say is applicable to lower animals but not higher ones like whales
[13:57] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): our feelings of time are based on the sun too
[13:57] Loo Zeta: Men have bigger brains than women..... so no
[13:57] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): OMG!!!
[13:57] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): omg
[13:58] Loo Zeta: :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: ^_^
[13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I suppose it is a sliding scale. shades of grey
[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): dont get into that!!!
[13:58] Jarapanda Snook: HA!
[13:58] Mistyowl Warrhol: yep, leaving that one alone, yep, yep, yep
[13:58] herman Bergson: I think it is time to shut down my brain.....^_^
[13:58] Mick Nerido: Neanderthals had bigger brains then modern humans...
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): been there done that several times in this class!!!!!!!!!
[13:59] Loo Zeta: :D
[13:59] herman Bergson: So….thank you all for your participation....this was a great adventure
[13:59] Jarapanda Snook: if men have bigger brains - which bits are bigger?
[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Herman
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:59] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:59] Jarapanda Snook: Thank You Herman
[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): not suere i am looking forward to free market!!!!!!!!
[13:59] Mick Nerido: sorry to miss class
[13:59] herman Bergson: And I rest my case.....
[13:59] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): thank you Herman:)
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: Good discuss, much to ponder on :-)
[14:00] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[14:00] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for now
[14:00] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[14:00] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): bye gemma
[14:00] Qwark Allen: glad i made it
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa cu
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: this have been great
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: hope next theme will be as interesting
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: keep it up Herman
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:00] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye class&herman :o) ......see you tuesday!! greetings to you, in the universe :-)
[14:01] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): ducks....
[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[14:01] Loo Zeta: :D thanks again
[14:01] herman Bergson: Cant promise you anything Bejiita, but I think it is going to be fun ...next subject
[14:01] herman Bergson: We are all in it..in the crisis
[14:01] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): bye all..have a goodnight
[14:02] Sybyle Perdide: bye rose
[14:02] Loo Zeta: Goodnight to you too
[14:02] Blackrose (blackrose.baroque): bye Herman
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cu
[14:02] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Bye Herman, and everyone
[14:02] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC everyone.. hugs till next time :)
[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Merlin
[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: Bye all
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[14:03] Loo Zeta: Thanks all

381: The Brain, determinism and Free Will

2012-02-09T14:54:00.002+01:00

In The Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant maintained that causation was one of the fundamental concepts that rendered the empirical world comprehensible to humans.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, psychology was beginning to show just how pervasive human reasoning concerning cause and effect is.

Even young children seem to naturally organize their knowledge of the world according to relations of cause and effect.

Causal determinism states that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature.

Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe.

If the laws of nature were determinate, then such an entity would be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

These interpretations of determinism leave little room for a free will. On the other hand, suppose your free will means your ability to choose A over B…just like that.

No reason for the choice…just out of the blue you choose A, because you are driven by free will. Somehow that doesn't feel good. You think, you need a motivation for your choice.

But was it free will then, or a choice determined by motives. And where do those motives come from? Aren't they caused by other thoughts or experiences?

Somehow we must find some explanation, that allows causation and on the other hand can not causally explain, why we chose A over B, which could mean that determinism is compatible with free will.

We could argue that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' wills are the result of their own desires and are not overridden by some external force.

So, what is free will. Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), claimed that a person acts on their own only when the person wanted to do the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to.

You also can speak of free will as positive liberty, defined as having the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential (this may include freedom from internal constraints), as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint.

But you also could argue that there are cases where a coerced individual's choices are still free because such coercion coincides with the individual's personal intentions and desires.

David Hume (1711 - 1776) discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue.

He suggested that it might be accounted for by "a false sensation or seeming experience" which is associated with many of our actions when we perform them. On reflection, we realize that they were necessary and determined all along.

It seems that we don't need brain scans and neuroscientific evidence to come to the conclusion, that the idea of free will is a verbal issue.

Just think about the meaning of the word "free" in relation to willing. Free from what? We can not act without a reason or a cause. And if we can not find one, Freud has taught us that there are many subconscious reasons too.

So, free will, is it really that interesting? Did Hobbes define the idea of free here the best? We act and we take responsibility for our actions, that is how the system works.

The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:24] Jaelle Faerye: Thank you Herman
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Well yes, thats a clear statement of the dilemma
[13:25] herman Bergson: it is up to your free will to react or have a question ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: YES MERLIN....
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:25] Mick Nerido: If i were to throw dice to determine a choice that would be free will?
[13:25] herman Bergson: The more I studied the subject the less I got interested in that concept of "free"
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Even dice are not truly random
[13:26] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:26] Jaelle Faerye: "free" is the keyword
[13:26] herman Bergson: Mick, there was a reason to use dice
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Jaelle...
[13:26] herman Bergson: and to be honest..don't know what to do with it
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: haaa
[13:27] Mick Nerido: to eliminate my choice leaving it purely to chance
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: haven't you aver done that, Mick?
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: throw dice
[13:27] herman Bergson: you wouldnt accept that Mick
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: or flip a coin
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: I suspect that part of the problem is the idea of an unchangeable" core self"
[13:27] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have sometimes tossed a coin
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: and find out you want the OTHER solution
[13:27] Mick Nerido: i threw a dart at a map to choose a vacation destination
[13:27] herman Bergson: all actions that are rationalisations of a situation
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:28] Mick Nerido: vacation
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah'
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: and the dice or coin can help us see what we don't want
[13:28] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I'm very interested in divination actually.
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: lol "asking for advice just means you know what you want to do and don't like it."
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: just clarify the choice as unacceptable
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: maybe
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Druth ^_^
[13:29] herman Bergson: let me put it this way....
[13:29] Jaelle Faerye: or maybe you respect someone's insight and you want to get another way of thinking around your issue
[13:29] herman Bergson: we behave...choose al the time...90% subconsciously even....
[13:29] herman Bergson: but in conscious choices........
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think there is the ability to veto our choice...
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is reacting on a trigger free will?...even if the reaction is very bad and you never have chosen if you had the choise?
[13:31] herman Bergson: like the golf player swings his club an d in a split second says "No, not the good swing" and misses the ball
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: but why would you want to play a bad swing
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ?
[13:31] herman Bergson: we are conditioned to a high level in behavior Beertje..yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: No Bekiita....
[13:32] herman Bergson: in the movement of the swing he feels it isnt the right one
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: i want to hit the ball as good as i call all times sometimes very good otherwise it go not as good but i always try to go for the best shot possible
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): so reacting on a trigger is free will?...did I understood that right?
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: if you practice something oftenly it belongs to subconsciousness
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if you can train your trigger then it can be
[13:33] herman Bergson: no Beertje..that is conditioned behavior...
[13:33] herman Bergson: What is the meaning of all advertising???To deprive us of our free will
[[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: depends
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bu tin the store..at the very moment we buy the producct ..in a split second...we can say NO
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: i use to say that some of it can be good to inform us about a good product and then it also SHOULD be good
[13:34] Mick Nerido: advertising tries to sell us something not deprive us of free will
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: depends what you call advertising
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: however they don't have to show coca cola commercials evenry now and then for example
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: a billboard a sign
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: i already KNOW its a good product that taste good
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: something can INFORM you
[13:35] herman Bergson: no no...I understand....
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: it seeks to condition our responses, if you try to maintain consciousness of your decisions then the effect tends to be more limited
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: that there is a grocery here, for instance
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not every product that taste good is good for your health
[13:35] herman Bergson: we are not deprived of our free will , we are just influenced....biased eventually
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: advertising is not = information
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: okay
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hmm thats one thing indeed for example i don't drink a 2 litre bottle now and then but some people do and thats way too much sugar
[13:36] herman Bergson: no Lizzy…advertising is trying to control our will
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: nods
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: its tasty but should not drink too much
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: it's not coercion, though it is an attempt at conditioning
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: should
[13:36] herman Bergson: and in such situations...I think...
[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): they try us to believe that we can't live without the product
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: if you want to know what free will means is our ability to say NO at any given moment
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: like apple and their ipads and iphones
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: if we are looking for free will, we have to find the gap between the different causes, that will work
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Advertisers would take away our free will if they could
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: or better, if there is such a gap, in which we can act free
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: dont like apple at all esp not after i read about the workers in china commiting suicide
[13:37] Mick Nerido: thats right just say no.
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: made me really sad
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: and their damn lock in policies
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Was that because they could not get the new phone?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it's your free will to NOT bye the stuff bejiita
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: tried to get an ipod working for a friend but the damn software that they require itunes didnt want to work at all,
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: with other things u plug it in the usb transfer your stuff no prob
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: thats how it should be
[13:39] herman Bergson: At this moment I am inclined to say that free will is not defined by the freedom of wanting something, but by our ability to say NO...in any situation
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why so angry about that stuff Bejiita?..you don't have to buy that
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: you'd have to want to say "no" at some level
[13:39] Mick Nerido: I freely choose to be at Philosophy class lol
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Mick...you could say NO at any moment and not come
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: if you see through the advertisement you can decide against the product
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: when it comes to stuff like that I am more for open solutions and luckily there are such ones too
[13:40] Mick Nerido: but there are many unconscious reasons I don'y
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes thats an important thing , to see through commercials and similar things
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Mick, but yet....
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i wiped my husband out free will from this chair behind the comp to be here in this class
[13:41] herman Bergson: at this moment ...
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: i always think twice
[13:41] herman Bergson: if you want a definition of free will...
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: please
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I would say..our ability free from any coercion to say NO
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: the more knowledge you have the easier you can decide
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: but i like to test new things and if they are good i stick with it if they are bad i look for something else
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: i disagree Lizzy
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: to find just the things i want
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: the more knowledge you have, the more options you see
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: the more difficult is the choice
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:43] herman Bergson: but youstill can say NO
[13:43] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): true Herman..everybody can say NO
[13:43] herman Bergson: whatever options you have...
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: u can laways do that indeed
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: what now, yes or no?
[13:44] herman Bergson: well..if determinism means that all our actions are caused ...then free willmeans...NO
[13:44] herman Bergson: which means...we ignore the causes and just say..I dont do it
[13:44] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:44] herman Bergson: for the rst we are ok by that fact that our actions are caused....
[13:45] herman Bergson: we go to the supermarket and buy the product that was advertized on tv...we don't care...but we could have said NO
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes at least partially depending on what it is to do at moment
[[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: but this no is caused on knowledge too
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: because we have the knowledge about how advertisement is made
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: it need not to be free will
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: if i work are at home for ex, choose actions depending from what my current action is
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...you could say that the NO is cause d by other inner causes....
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: the difficulty is to get to a point where our different knowledges and so on are in standoff situation
[13:47] Mick Nerido: thats why i use chance when i am not sure
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: but I don't know how to manage
[13:47] herman Bergson: for instance, because you hate to follow TV commercials by buying the products
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): one has to feel good by saying NO..otherwise it's not a good choice
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Beertje....
[13:48] herman Bergson: the NO is a personal victory :-)
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: or "yes"
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: depending if u like it or not
[13:48] herman Bergson: OK Druth..now and then you may say YES
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is it all about personal victory..the free will I mean?
[13:49] druth Vlodovic: the secret I think is to be deliberate in making yourself into the sort of person you want to be, so your choices will follow
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: i think for example that this is interesting so therefore im here at the moment
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: and also have many friends here thats another thing to it
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: stuff like that
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] Mick Nerido: when a girl says no does she mean yes?
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: if everbody sais NO you can say NO to the NO, what means Yes
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: uh oh
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: makes me say yes to this
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): nó Mick
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: u mean that they play hard to get when they like you or?
[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): she means no..
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: if your choice is just to pull against the mainstream then it's not really a choice,
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: Simple and correct logic Lizzy...
[13:50] herman Bergson: when they all say NO you may say YES
[13:50] herman Bergson: which is equivalent to NO NO ㋡
[13:51] druth Vlodovic: for it to be a real choice it has to be carefully considered along a number of dimensions
[13:52] herman Bergson: You know.....
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: even if the final decision is what everyone else chose as well it is still worth it to go through the process of deeply considering it first
[13:52] herman Bergson: I hardly have an idea what free will is....
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: its interesting subject for sure
[13:53] herman Bergson: I know that all behavior has causes....conscious and subconscious....
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: and tricky indeed
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: is there someone who has an idea, Herman?
[13:53] Mick Nerido: it's something like liberty...
[13:54] herman Bergson: So when I can do what I do and nobody is keeping me from doing it...I guess I am using my free will in a deterministic context
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: and what is liberty, .. a feeling only?!
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: id say many of my choises are based on what i do at moment but then i have based in that a group of actions i can take and choose between as i like
[13:54] herman Bergson: and that can define responsability....
[13:55] herman Bergson: I can try to kill some one....everybody would stop me...because of our moral rituals
[13:55] Mick Nerido: liberty means free to choose.
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes things i know is wrong i cant make myself to choose on
[[13:55] Bejiita Imako: then its a no
e[13:56] herman Bergson: it is up to your own free will tho think about how fre you are to want things...
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: I remember the tactics i used on my kids to take away their choices without them knowing
[13:56] herman Bergson: I guess I have tortured your brains enough now...
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: "do you want a shower or a bath" only sounds like a choice... :)
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: same if i hold a very expensive vase, even if i could drop it free will i cant make myself to do it, or any other thing i dont want to break
[13:56] herman Bergson: So thank you all...
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman
[13:57] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..
[[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU Herman
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: tnx
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: really nice and interesting once again
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): very interesting Herman
[13:58] herman Bergson: Never knew that a free will could be so problematic ㋡
[13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Anyone interested in psychology might be interested in a programme on Schizophrenia on BBC this morning.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7
[13:58] herman Bergson: Ahh....
[13:58] herman Bergson: thnx Merlin!
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): YW Herman. I was thinking I should tell people at the time I heard it.
[13:59] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Still available on the web
[13:59] herman Bergson: Good idea Merlin!
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all

380: Eavesdropping on the Brain

2012-02-09T14:52:00.001+01:00

Before continuing with the question of Free Will I'd like to bring to your attention what was in my newspaper this morning.

For the first time neuroscientists of Berkeley University in California have been able to translate brain activity into understandable words.

The technique is still in its early stages. To "read" whole sentences is still impossible and the eavesdropping only works when electrodes are placed directly on the brain.

Yet the results are amazing: 6 out of 18 words could be reconstructed from brain activity and made understandable.

There is a small brain area just above the ear, in which tiny brain parts become only active when for instance, we hear a word.

Each tiny group of neurons is activated by just one specific sound or vibration, just like the keys of a piano keyboard are related to one specific sound each.

Fifteen patients who already had to undergo brain surgery for another reason volunteered for the research team of Brian Pasley.

They all got a pad full of electrodes placed on the speech center of the brain. The electrodes registered precisely which braincells became active when certain words were heard. And a language recognition program was able to convert the resulting diagrams into speech.

This of course is far from reading someone's thoughts. Only what the patient hears is decoded. But there is a remarkable resemblance between how the brain "hears' speech and how it imagines speech.

This brings us back to the intentionality of consciousness. Thoughts are not just thoughts, but always thoughts about something and do we think in language? Is thinking a kind of inner speech.

This is a first step in analyzing how a brain decodes sound. Maybe the next step is, assuming we think in language, to discover how the brain formulates its thoughts.

Allthough the debate on free will is as old as philosophy, it is mainly due to the publicity about neuroscientific discoveries, that free will, and especially free will as an illusion is high on the agenda again.

But an illusion? Is our consciousness telling us stories. How does that work?

As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game.

Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves.

This could be analogue to how we function as organisms with a brain. The brain as a material thing is subject to deterministic laws of nature.

We interact with an environment that is controlled by the same deterministic limitation, but for every situation the brain can generate infinite and unpredictable behavior. Like you are in a candy store and don't know what to choose.

Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.

But that brain that shows a readiness-potential for a movement before we consciously decide to move, does that support the idea of free will being an illusion?

Take a golf payer. His brain shows already a readiness-potential before he consciously decides to swing his club.

The club swings down, but a split second before he hits the ball, he decides to miss, because he wants to give it another try. In other words, wasn't that th use of free will to choose what to do in this situation?

FOR YOUR INFORMATiON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Berkely reach:
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/01/31/scientists-decode-brain-waves-to-eavesdrop-on-what-we-hear/

The Discussion

[[2012/02/02 13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[2012/02/02 13:20] Bejiita Imako: but i miss sometimes yes
[2012/02/02 13:21] Bejiita Imako: but mostly i hit but i always want to hit the ball as good as possible
[2012/02/02 13:21] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): apparently they'r hooking up military airplane pilots now to act on their thots before that can even move
[2012/02/02 13:21] herman Bergson: Ok Sybyle...
[2012/02/02 13:21] Lizzy Pleides: If we don't have a free will, then we are probably dominated by elematary insincts like hunger, being cold and reproduction
[2012/02/02 13:21] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): *they
[2012/02/02 13:21] herman Bergson: Yes they do Shiva
[2012/02/02 13:21] Hokon Cazalet: why say that lizzy?
[2012/02/02 13:21] Bejiita Imako: its an interesting idea for sure this
[2012/02/02 13:21] Sybyle Perdide: if you can read in the brain reaction before they are executed it onl y tells about the relation between body and brain
[2012/02/02 13:21] Sybyle Perdide: not about consciousness and brain
[2012/02/02 13:22] herman Bergson: Yes I agree Sybyle....
[2012/02/02 13:22] herman Bergson: I am wondering about this relation myself....
[2012/02/02 13:22] Qwark Allen is Online
[2012/02/02 13:22] herman Bergson: but the brain performs already unconscious action
[2012/02/02 13:22] Mick Nerido: could the brain have many options available before "sending" signals
[2012/02/02 13:23] Lizzy Pleides: what is the reason for a decision when we don't have a free will?
[2012/02/02 13:23] Hokon Cazalet: rational calculation, higher feelings
[2012/02/02 13:23] Sybyle Perdide: hi Qwark
[2012/02/02 13:23] Bejiita Imako: hi Qwark
[[2012/02/02 13:23] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[2012/02/02 13:23] herman Bergson: Well that is the point Mick....the brain generates thousends of options in every situation....
[2012/02/02 13:23] Hokon Cazalet: my calculator has no free will, but isn't governing by any lower drive
[2012/02/02 13:24] herman Bergson: and some say that when we have picked an option we think it was based on free will
[2012/02/02 13:24] Hokon Cazalet: perhaps there isn't a psychical [mental] basis for our actions, perhaps its purely neurological
[2012/02/02 13:24] herman Bergson: No Hokon, becaue your calculator isn't conscious
[2012/02/02 13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh my
[2012/02/02 13:24] Hokon Cazalet: psychologists and philosophers, i've noticed, presume that for every psychical events, there must be another psychical thing that is the cause, but why is this so?
[2012/02/02 13:25] Hokon Cazalet: i agree herman
[2012/02/02 13:25] Sybyle Perdide: have we ever had a definition what free will means, Herman?
[2012/02/02 13:25] Hokon Cazalet: why cant the psychical be caused by the non-psychical @ lizzy
[2012/02/02 13:25] herman Bergson: in fact it is Hokon....
[2012/02/02 13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it seems to me most things are decided by will and others are aresponse to a stimulus
[2012/02/02 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): automatic response
[2012/02/02 13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: Our reflex actions are based on preconditioned actions from past activities. So in effect, the doing without thinking was something we conditioned ourselves to do. Does that not still make it something we wanted to do, so would that not still count as free will?
[2012/02/02 13:26] Lizzy Pleides: thats what i meant with instincts
[2012/02/02 13:26] Sybyle Perdide: nods to Gemma
[2012/02/02 13:26] Hokon Cazalet: my calculator was merely an example of a complex thing that acts without reference to "drives", perhaps human mental life has no mental basis ultimately
[2012/02/02 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[2012/02/02 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): reflexive
[2012/02/02 13:27] herman Bergson: The thesis here is that we are our brain....
[2012/02/02 13:27] Hokon Cazalet: instincts to me beg the question, why propose something else psychical [hunger etc], since we can ask what is their cause, and just apply ockham's razor, go to neural behavoir from the start
[2012/02/02 13:27] Hokon Cazalet: id agree herman
[2012/02/02 13:27] herman Bergson: the mind, or consciousness is a feature of the brain
[2012/02/02 13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think to use free will we need time to think about it
[2012/02/02 13:27] Hokon Cazalet: imo there's a lot of psychology that presumes we are a spirit still
[2012/02/02 13:27] herman Bergson: like liquidity is a feature of water...
[2012/02/02 13:27] Hokon Cazalet: [mistakenly so]
[2012/02/02 13:27] herman Bergson: no water no liquidity
[2012/02/02 13:27] herman Bergson: no brain no mind
[2012/02/02 13:28] herman Bergson: The big question however is...
[2012/02/02 13:28] herman Bergson: how can a material thing like the brain generate that what we experience as our consciousness
[2012/02/02 13:29] herman Bergson: and one of the features of consciousness is th eexperience of a free will
[2012/02/02 13:29] herman Bergson: the power that shapes our life, makes us responseble for what we do
[2012/02/02 13:29] herman Bergson: the deeper layer of the free will problem is causality...
[2012/02/02 13:30] herman Bergson: every event has a cause.....is the basic idea
[2012/02/02 13:30] herman Bergson: and if every event has a cause all is determined
[2012/02/02 13:31] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): :(
[2012/02/02 13:31] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): hmmm
[2012/02/02 13:31] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): :-)
[2012/02/02 13:31] herman Bergson: just think about an uncaused event.....
[2012/02/02 13:31] Hokon Cazalet: although free will needs a cause or determining principle, otherwise its random, chaotic
[2012/02/02 13:32] herman Bergson: it is just there..happens out of the blue....
[2012/02/02 13:32] herman Bergson: exactly Hokon....
[2012/02/02 13:32] herman Bergson: that is at the heart of the debate on determinism
[2012/02/02 13:32] Hokon Cazalet: yup, so there's a paradox - freedom requires a violation of causality, yet without causality freedom doesn't exist [i.e. random]
[2012/02/02 13:32] herman Bergson: right...
[2012/02/02 13:32] Mistyowl Warrhol: I guess to me this is all like the saying, you can not see the forest for the trees. Looking at just the consciousness, without all the other components involved, we are missing the full picture.
[2012/02/02 13:33] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2012/02/02 13:33] Hokon Cazalet: hmm
[2012/02/02 13:33] herman Bergson: In a next lecture I'll explain how philosophers try to solve that problen Hokon
[2012/02/02 13:33] Mick Nerido: but it could be we just rely on old habits and patterns of behavior
[2012/02/02 13:33] Hokon Cazalet: cool =) that's the one i got stuck on
[2012/02/02 13:34] herman Bergson: It is not easy....
[2012/02/02 13:34] Hokon Cazalet: hehe its had me stumped for years
[2012/02/02 13:35] herman Bergson: and this new research bring up so many new questions about the brain and consciousness...
[2012/02/02 13:35] Hokon Cazalet nods
[2012/02/02 13:35] Lizzy Pleides: not easy but exciting
[2012/02/02 13:35] herman Bergson: yes...
[2012/02/02 13:35] Hokon Cazalet: =)
[2012/02/02 13:35] herman Bergson: just imagine....
[2012/02/02 13:36] herman Bergson: there is that pattern of neurons in the brain firing when a person hears a word....
[2012/02/02 13:36] herman Bergson: that pattern enables him to say I hear the word 'house'
[2012/02/02 13:36] Mick Nerido: why the hearts it's early for Valentine Day lol
[2012/02/02 13:36] herman Bergson: so consciousness kicks in....
[2012/02/02 13:36] Hokon Cazalet: its always love a teddy bear day :√û
[2012/02/02 13:36] herman Bergson: there is a transition from that unique pattern to consciousness
[2012/02/02 13:37] herman Bergson: how does that work...
[2012/02/02 13:37] herman Bergson: from firing neurons to a conscious ness of the word 'house'?
[2012/02/02 13:38] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): theres another set of neurons firing to enable the voice to speak the word thats heard
[2012/02/02 13:38] herman Bergson: yes shiva....
[2012/02/02 13:38] Lizzy Pleides: we have more exciting words than house, giggle
[2012/02/02 13:39] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[2012/02/02 13:39] herman Bergson: that is what I meant to say with 'do we think in language'
[2012/02/02 13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: Nooooo comment !!!!
[2012/02/02 13:39] herman Bergson: gins
[2012/02/02 13:39] herman Bergson: yes lizzy.bu tthe effect is the same....you hear the word
[2012/02/02 13:39] Lizzy Pleides: nods
[2012/02/02 13:39] herman Bergson: What consciousness does with it is another story
[2012/02/02 13:40] druth Vlodovic: I can think in sounds and pictures as well, I thought this was investigated for education research already
[2012/02/02 13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): interesting
[2012/02/02 13:40] Hokon Cazalet: i think in feelings sometimes [to add to druth's comment]
[2012/02/02 13:40] herman Bergson: The next big question to deal with is: Is a determinist worldview compatible with the concept of free will
[2012/02/02 13:41] Mick Nerido: without a word for it, things have less meaning
[2012/02/02 13:41] druth Vlodovic: depends Mick :)
[2012/02/02 13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: I do wish you had never mentioned "candy store", my free will was gone and all I can think of now is CHOCOLATE!!!!
[2012/02/02 13:41] herman Bergson: True Druth, indeed....
[2012/02/02 13:41] druth Vlodovic: less definition certainly
[2012/02/02 13:41] herman Bergson: How does a composer or a painter think otherwise...
[2012/02/02 13:41] herman Bergson: But other brain areas can be involved in such processes
[2012/02/02 13:42] herman Bergson: for instance the visual cortex, while a logic reasoning is situated in the prefrontal lobe
[2012/02/02 13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: and the composer, who wrote such beautiful music, even though he was deaf?
[2012/02/02 13:43] herman Bergson: that is a very complex situation Misty
[2012/02/02 13:43] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): very
[2012/02/02 13:44] herman Bergson: can be anything....for instance extreme sentitivity for vibrations
[2012/02/02 13:44] druth Vlodovic: so maybe this is why it is harder to reason about what you see without translating it into language first, proximity to the appropriate connections/functions
[2012/02/02 13:44] herman Bergson: for those who want to know more about the berkeley reseach...
[2012/02/02 13:44] herman Bergson: you really show have a look...
[2012/02/02 13:45] herman Bergson: there are audio samples of the experiment and how the word was reconstructed
[2012/02/02 13:45] herman Bergson: FOR YOUR INFORMATiON
----------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Berkely reach:
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/01/31/scientists-decode-brain-waves-to-eavesdrop-on-what-we-hear/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[2012/02/02 13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY, saved
[2012/02/02 13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[2012/02/02 13:46] herman Bergson: Extensive and well documented article...
[2012/02/02 13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[2012/02/02 13:46] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[2012/02/02 13:47] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): apparently they have to rewrite the medical texts now as research has shown that the language center, per se, is not behind the ear as always thot, but near the front and in the same place as the monkeys
[2012/02/02 13:47] herman Bergson: this is just the beginning....
[2012/02/02 13:47] Mick Nerido: Thanks
[2012/02/02 13:47] Qwark Allen: that reminds me psytrance
[2012/02/02 13:47] Qwark Allen: they add some frequencies to the music, that stimulate the production of endomorphines in the brain
[2012/02/02 13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Shiva I already heard that comment too ^_^
[2012/02/02 13:47] Bejiita Imako: you mean psy trance music
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: yes
[2012/02/02 13:48] Bejiita Imako: hmm that might be possible indeed
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: that is why is so addictive music
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[2012/02/02 13:48] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): yes, that is so, qwark
[2012/02/02 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): not to herman
[2012/02/02 13:48] Bejiita Imako: il think about that during your set now today and see if i can note such things
[2012/02/02 13:48] herman Bergson: that is very well possible Qwark....
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: he never heard it ^^
[2012/02/02 13:48] herman Bergson: like joggers get addicted to endorphines too
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: it is hermann, all true
[2012/02/02 13:48] Qwark Allen: yes
[2012/02/02 13:49] Bejiita Imako: its speedy stuff that gets me going for sure
[2012/02/02 13:49] herman Bergson: Well...plenty of questions and ideas to think about again I guess
[2012/02/02 13:49] Qwark Allen: its the beat of the heart beat of babies
[2012/02/02 13:49] Qwark Allen: 140-160 beats per minute
[2012/02/02 13:49] herman Bergson: Next lecute will be on the (in)compatobility between determinism and free will
[2012/02/02 13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: now that is interesting Qwark.
[2012/02/02 13:50] herman Bergson: That is pure philosophy...
[2012/02/02 13:50] Qwark Allen: kind of the first sound you listen, before you born
[2012/02/02 13:50] Lizzy Pleides: great!
[2012/02/02 13:50] Bejiita Imako: i like it
[2012/02/02 13:50] Bejiita Imako: what my neighbours think i dont know
[2012/02/02 13:50] Bejiita Imako: good its welll insulated here
[2012/02/02 13:50] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[2012/02/02 13:51] herman Bergson: But how can it be that someone doesn't like that kind of music Qwark?
[2012/02/02 13:51] Mistyowl Warrhol: Qwark, first sound you hear is Mom's heart beat and the gurgling of her intestines.
[2012/02/02 13:51] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[2012/02/02 13:51] Bejiita Imako: my mom thinks psy sounds horrible
[2012/02/02 13:51] Bejiita Imako: haha
[2012/02/02 13:51] Qwark Allen: first is yours eheheh
[2012/02/02 13:51] druth Vlodovic: preconditioning maybe
[[2012/02/02 13:51] herman Bergson: to much Bach consumed Druth?
[2012/02/02 13:51] herman Bergson: Is that the cause?
[2[2012/02/02 13:52] druth Vlodovic: people develop preferences for music that makes them feel a certain way, even music that makes you feel good will be annoying if you prefer to feel a different way while listening to music
[[2012/02/02 13:52] herman Bergson: Well Qwark...I'll try an come to listen to your baby heartbeat music again ^_^
[2012/02/02 13:52] Mick Nerido: True druth
[2012/02/02 13:52] Bejiita Imako: yes
[2012/02/02 13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[2012/02/02 13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[2012/02/02 13:52] Qwark Allen: thank you
[2012/02/02 13:52] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[2012/02/02 13:53] Qwark Allen: i`ll do my best
[2012/02/02 13:53] Qwark Allen: the heart rate of mom, is made by a instrument, its the snare
[2012/02/02 13:53] Bejiita Imako: for example when at work if i mount stuff and take it easy i often prefer either srtuff like this or deep house style
[2012/02/02 13:53] herman Bergson: Just let me know when you are on with it, Qwark ..I am curious
[2012/02/02 13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): today
[2012/02/02 13:53] Qwark Allen: going to play some at the party right after class
[2012/02/02 13:53] Bejiita Imako: but when harder stuff like welding or grinding work i usually go for talamasca or somethinkg like that
[2012/02/02 13:53] Lizzy Pleides: please tell me too qwark
[2012/02/02 13:54] herman Bergson: cool...quick service!
[2012/02/02 13:54] herman Bergson: Time to end our discussion then....
[2012/02/02 13:54] Qwark Allen: this music talks about images, that your brain makes with the sounds
[2012/02/02 13:54] Bejiita Imako: or when training hard also go for quicker harder stuff
[2012/02/02 13:54] : llStopAnimation: Script trying to stop animations but agent not found
[2012/02/02 13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your inspiring participation
[2012/02/02 13:54] Qwark Allen: when you get a bit used to it, you can see what the music talks about
[2012/02/02 13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
[2012/02/02 13:54] Bejiita Imako: what suits the situation so to speak
[2012/02/02 13:54] Alexina Rene' (rene2008.zanzibar): ty!
[2012/02/02 13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[2012/02/02 13:54] Qwark Allen: it`s like to understand the fax machine
[2012/02/02 13:54] Bejiita Imako: really interesting
[2012/02/02 13:54] Bejiita Imako: thanx Herman
[2012/02/02 13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursday
[2[2012/02/02 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[2012/02/02 13:55] Qwark Allen: ty hermann, glad i arrived in time for the discussion
[2012/02/02 13:55] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[2012/02/02 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: many input again
[2012/02/02 13:55] druth Vlodovic: a lot of human behavior seems to be based on creating predictable outcomes, or fitting our mental states to the environment (or avoiding doing so)
[2012/02/02 13:55] Hokon Cazalet: ty herman =)
[2012/02/02 13:55] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[2012/02/02 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: or better much input
[2012/02/02 13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure
[2012/02/02 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: cannot decide
[2012/02/02 13:55] Shiva Rhapsody in Blue (rhaptuous.aura): always an inspiration to come here, thank you, professor herman
[2012/02/02 13:55] Hokon Cazalet: its gotten me thinking about this subject again, been busy on other stuff - forgot how fun this one was =)
[2012/02/02 13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, TY from me too Herman. I will have to read some of that back later
[2012/02/02 13:55] herman Bergson: you are welcome Shiva
[2012/02/02 13:56] druth Vlodovic: where are you performing qwark?
[2012/02/02 13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[2012/02/02 13:56] Jareth Wirsing: bye all
[2012/02/02 13:56] Sybyle Perdide: bye Jareth
[2012/02/02 13:56] Jaelle Faerye: bye Jareth
[2012/02/02 13:57] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[2012/02/02 13:57] Sybyle Perdide: ciao Beertje :)
[2012/02/02 13:57] Bejiita Imako: :)'
[2012/02/02 13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye bye..goodnight

379: Consciousness and Free Will

2012-02-09T14:38:00.002+01:00

The brain is a hot issue in the media like my Saturday newspaper proved again. A page long article with the headline: "spontaneous" decisions are over.

We have an intuitive belief that we have a free will. Some might argue….well, to some extend yes. It is almost the same intuitive belief that we have a mind and a body in a dualistic sense.

However, when asked a philosopher, we get another story. This dualism of mind and body is an idea only uphold by just a few anymore.

That's ok, as long as nobody starts denying that we have a mind. Let philosophers debate ontological questions here.

But our free will. That is another cup of tea.That free will is part of our identity. We shaped our personality by our free choices. Because of our free will we are morally responsible.

And here is a journalist who gets 64 electrodes attached to his skull looking at a computer screen, on which something is moving.

He gets the instruction to stop that movement by a mouse click, whenever he likes. Just spontaneous, unplanned.

What happens? Seconds before he presses the mouse button "spontaneously" there is already activity in the premotoric cortex.

The brain seems to be ahead of my spontaneous decision to press the button. It already made the decision for me?

the belief in a free will has serious consequences as has the opposite: the belief that they decide for you, that circumstances determine your present state and so on.

A research team of the university of Gent, Belgium, convinced one half of the group of test persons, that free will is an illusion

They presented them with the words of Nobel prizewinner Francis Crick:" Your feeling of personal identity and free will is nothing more than the behavior of a large group of braincells and molecules therein."

Whether Crick is right or not, in the heads of the test persons this text had a remarkable effect on the brain activity.

The brain activity in a free choice experiment was considerably less than in heads of those who hadn't read Crick's text and unconcerned believe in their free will.

Especially the unconscious process in the brain that precedes the spontaneous choice activity was 25% less in this group.

The belief or disbelief in a free will affects us, influences how we perform and act, like researchers from the University of MInnesota and University of California discovered.

Test persons had to solve 20 math problems. They could cheat, but were explicitly asked not to do so.
One half of the group was confronted with the text of Francis Crick.

The result was that in that group 60% more cheated than in the group who hadn't read the words of Francis Crick.

This defines our philosophical problem clearly: Is free will an illusion? What is the place of free will in our lives if all our actions are the result of some other cause?

Do our desires and unconscious beliefs make us less free? How do human beings assert their autonomy in a world governed by chance, cause and necessity?

You are free to show up next Thursday to hear how this story continues.

The Discussion

[13:24] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yay, very interesting
[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:24] Bibbe Oh: thank you!
[13:24] Jaelle Faerye: what a cliffhanger, Herman, LOL
[13:24] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor
[13:24] herman Bergson: if you have any questions or remarks...the floor is yours
[13:24] Farv Hallison: Thank you herman
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: thank you, it was brilliant again
[13:24] Mistyowl Warrhol: Interesting theory.
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Im interested in that time-shift thing
[13:25] Mistyowl Warrhol: Do we have the free will to allow outside influence to effect how thinking?
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes Merlin that is a fascinating phenomenon.
[13:25] Mick Nerido: Have to go see u thursday
[13:25] herman Bergson: Ok Mick
[13:25] Farv Hallison: bye Mik
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: tc mick
[13:26] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Mick
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC Mick :-)
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Sometimes I think I had predicted something, but then wonder if my memory was false and came after the event
[13:26] herman Bergson: The general idea is that before we are conscious of our desicion the brain is already at work
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: It came definitely after the event Merlin....
[13:27] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes :)
[13:27] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Do other people experience this?
[13:27] herman Bergson: the idea is that the brain makes up things....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But I have a problem with this way of thinking...
[13:28] herman Bergson: on the one hand there is the brain....
[13:28] herman Bergson: on the other hand there is consciousness
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: but.. however you define free will.. the decision, the free will did, must come from somewhere
[13:28] herman Bergson: My point of view is that indeed the brain generates consciousness as a biological process
[13:28] Farv Hallison: I say your mind is different than consciousness....your mind made the desicion any it was displayed later on your Cartesean stage.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Farv...that is a little bit what I fear...
[13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some people are more influenced by outside events. Some are not. What about the 40% that did not cheat?
[13:29] herman Bergson: the idea that consciousness is the audience of the brain
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how much time is there between the brain and action?
[13:30] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Richard Dawkins says clearly that he thinks consciousness evolved
[13:30] herman Bergson: half a second Beertje....in certain tests
[13:30] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Sorry, thats obvious
[13:30] herman Bergson: But Misty you got a point....
[13:30] Hokon Cazalet: true, if consciousness is a product of evolution [which it is], then it served some survivial value, somewhere somehow
[13:31] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes thats it
[13:31] herman Bergson: research shows that when you tell people there is no free will, they become less social and moral
[13:31] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Oh they DO?
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Merlin...…
[13:31] herman Bergson: therefore I have great difficulty with this brian observations and how it is related to free will
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): they let go of their own moral?
[13:32] Mistyowl Warrhol: If ppl have been conditioned to obey what they hear, they lose free will. Ppl who are "free thinkers" will still rely on free will.
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: that's an interesting thing
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....they feel less responseble for their actions...
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: that moral thing
[13:32] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I suppose Misty raises a broader issue there
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: i read somewhere
[13:33] Farv Hallison: what does it mean to rely on free will?
[13:33] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Degrees of free will
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: that they had an "experiment" going on
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: with people
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: doesn't it depend of intelligence and education?
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: If any event is less obvious, we are more likely to let it influence us..
[13:33] herman Bergson: To rely on free will means that you have the feeling, Farv, that you make the decisions, you plot the course
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: volunteers who were supposed to ask questions and "punish" with a power surge if the answer was wrong
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: Trying to think of the word I am looking for.. duh
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: but what is me?
[13:34] herman Bergson: The Miller experiment Jaelle....test on authority...
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: and
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: letting go of the free will
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: since it was "required"
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes some obeyed to the extreme
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: people abdicated their own free will
[13:35] herman Bergson: but I think that that is another story....
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: There are some, who will remain anon, who rebel when told something must be a certain way :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: it was not about free will this research but on the power of authority
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: uh huh
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: but
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: accepting authority without questioning?
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: isn't that somehow a negation of one's free will?
[13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: Exactly
[13:36] herman Bergson: no...
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: why?
[13:36] herman Bergson: it is the choice to leave the responsability to th eperson in charge
[13:37] Jaelle Faerye: uh huh
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: yep
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: noo
[13:37] Jaelle Faerye: i never went to army
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: not only#
[13:37] herman Bergson: well yes..it is army style...:-)
[13:37] herman Bergson: never question your superior!
[13:37] Jaelle Faerye: yup
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: and with some religions
[13:38] herman Bergson: oh yes Misty...
[13:38] herman Bergson: never question Mohammed
[13:38] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): ooh careful!
[13:38] herman Bergson: grins...
[13:38] herman Bergson: yeah Merlin..
[13:38] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): lol
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL but that is not about true religion, but ppl who use religion for power and that is a whole new issue.
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...I think you will be surprised when we really dig into th efree will issue philosophically...
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I look forward to it
[13:40] Jaelle Faerye: me too
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: There will always be ppl who believe only they are right and want to take free will away.
[13:40] herman Bergson: To be honest Merlin..me too....it is amazing in fact....
[13:41] herman Bergson: Then...may I thank you all again for your participation....
[13:41] Jaelle Faerye: Thank YOU, Herman
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: merci Herman
[13:41] herman Bergson: unless you still have a question or remark left
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, thank YOU
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you professor
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU Herman
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Nice discussion.. much to think about. ty :-)
[13:41] Bibbe Oh: Food for thought!
[13:41] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.. ^_^
[13:42] Hokon Cazalet: =)
[13:42] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): He he
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goodnight everybody
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: nini Beertje
[13:43] herman Bergson: I am sorry Lizzy about my report on what I saw
[13:43] Farv Hallison: goodnight beer
[13:43] Jaelle Faerye: Night Beerje

378: Consciousness and Intentionality

2012-02-02T20:47:00.002+01:00

The combined feature of qualitative, unified subjectivity is the essence of consciousness and it, more than anything else, is what makes consciousness different from other phenomena studied by the natural sciences.

Of course this is not the ultimate explanation of consciousness. It has a lot more features, but especially its unity is the most difficult part to explain scientifically.

No medical procedure to do with the unified consciousness has received as much philosophical attention in recent times as commissurotomies, more commonly known as brain bisection operations.

In these operations, the corpus callosum is cut. The corpus callosum is a large strand of about 200,000,000 neurons running from one hemisphere to the other. When present, it is the chief channel of communication between the hemispheres.

These operations, done mainly in the 1960s but recently reintroduced in a somewhat modified form, are a last-ditch effort to control certain kinds of severe epilepsy by stopping the spread of seizures from one lobe of the cerebral cortex to the other lobe.

In normal life, these patients show little effect of the operation. In particular, their consciousness of their world and themselves appears to remain as unified as it was prior to the operation. How this can be has puzzled a lot of people.

Under certain laboratory conditions, these patients behave as though two ‘centers of consciousness’ have been created in them.

The original unity seems to be gone and two centers of unified consciousness seem to have replaced it, each associated with one of the two cerebral hemispheres.

In an experiment a person was asked what profession he would choose, he said carpenter. Then asked to spell his choice of profession by using cards with letters on them, he spelled the word pilot.

When such a person can't see his hands those hands could be typing, but when asked "are you typing" the person says "no". This suggest, that these patients have two centers of consciousness.

I'll only draw your attention to this specific phenomena of the unity of consciousness. It is a complex subject and too big to discuss it here in full.

To bring the discussion of consciousness to an end, let me point at another important feature of consciousness: intentionality.

Conscious states typically have "intentionality," that property of mental states by which they are directed at or about objects and states of affairs in the world.

Philosophers use the word intentionality not just for "intending" in the ordinary sense but for any mental phenomena at all that have referential content.

According to this usage, beliefs, hopes, intentions, fears, desires and perceptions all are intentional. So if I have a belief, I must have a belief about something.

If I have a normal visual experience, it must seem to me that I am actually seeing something, etc. Not all conscious states are intentional ; for example, undirected anxiety lacks intentionality.

It can seem that consciousness and intentionality pervade mental life, but achieving an articulate general understanding of either consciousness or intentionality presents an enormous challenge.

I leave the subjects of the unity and intentionality of consciousness for further study to you.

The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:19] Farv Hallison: Can a dream be intentional?
[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): some say they do that
[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): get the dream ready and dream it
[13:20] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:20] herman Bergson: difficult question Farv
[13:20] druth Vlodovic: "lucid dreaming"
[13:20] Jarapanda Snook: In some dreams I am aware that I am acting with intentionality
[13:20] herman Bergson: It is some uncontrolled random event
[13:20] Jarapanda Snook: it is like I am consciously dreaming
[13:20] Mick Nerido: dreams lack a conscious intention
[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes jara....we talk and we think and believe in our dreams...
[13:21] herman Bergson: That's the point Mick
[13:21] druth Vlodovic: though according to the definition given you can have an intention you have no control over, like wanting to run away from something even if you know you shouldn't
[13:21] herman Bergson: So it is a kind of in between unconscious and conscious ...
[13:22] herman Bergson: oh yes druth.....
[13:22] Jaelle Faerye: wait wait
[13:22] Jaelle Faerye: but what tells me that this is not a dream?
[13:22] Jarapanda Snook: mostly my dreams are just like watching a B-movie, but sometimes i seem to act very consciously intentionally
[13:22] Mick Nerido: I dream of a solution to a RL problem, is that intentionalty
[13:22] herman Bergson: one of the main point regarding the unity of consciousness is that there is so much more going on in your brain of which you arent aware
[13:23] Farv Hallison: hello Hokon
[13:23] Hokon Cazalet: hi =) just got home from work
[13:23] herman Bergson: I am inclined to restrict intentionality to conscious mental states
[13:23] druth Vlodovic: why?
[13:24] herman Bergson: because it is about the fact that thought, believes desires etc are always about something....
[13:24] Jarapanda Snook: maybe that is a flawed assumption?
[13:25] herman Bergson: there is a clear relation between being conscious and the about of what you are conscious of.
[13:25] herman Bergson: Dreams don't fit into that picture
[13:25] Farv Hallison: Do the objects in SL qualify as things?
[13:25] Jarapanda Snook: so where does the subconscious come in ?
[13:25] Hokon Cazalet: dreams are about something, though dream-less sleep def doesnt fit
[13:25] herman Bergson: After waking up you can be aware of your dream
[13:26] Hokon Cazalet: during my dreams i look and use things, albeit its an illusion, but there is still content to my fantasies
[13:26] herman Bergson: I don't know what to do with dreams....
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes in dreams you seem to have intentional conscious mental states
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: but if impulses are included in intentionality then anything you do started as an impulse and became a plan,
[13:26] Hokon Cazalet: i simply say dream = vivid imaginations, my imagination of a unicorn has intentionality - its about a unicorn; my dream about fighting zombies has intentionality
[13:27] Mick Nerido: That memory of a dream makes it a conscious event
[13:27] Hokon Cazalet: i imagine myself gazing at zombies and i make use of imaginary tools - all of this has intentionality
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes hokon...you could say that.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: with intentionality I only want to say that a lot of conscious mentla states are always about something
[13:28] Hokon Cazalet: id be the same, i don't think all consciousness is conscious of something
[13:28] herman Bergson: Believe me...I'd rather not dig into this subkject too deep :-))
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: I'm actually interested in the idea of multiple conscious states, i've experienced evidence of this, odd that you are only "conscious" of one conscious state at a time
[13:28] Hokon Cazalet: hehe =)
[13:28] herman Bergson: because philosophically it is really complex
[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: and psychologically complex
[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: id agree =)
[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: i like what druth said also, only being conscious of one thing at a time - might be tied into the unity of intentional consciousness
[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: but i'm not sure its necessary
[13:29] herman Bergson: just look at these four statements regarding intentionality
[13:30] herman Bergson: Consciousness is explanatorily derived from intentionality.
Consciousness is underived and separable from intentionality.
Consciousness is underived but also inseparable from intentionality.
Consciousness is underived from, inseparable from, and essential to intentionality.
[13:30] Hokon Cazalet looks
[13:30] Jarapanda Snook: but I am aware of 2 simultanious states of consciousness - like a foreground an background - at the same time
[13:30] herman Bergson: I just give you the statements to show you how complex the issue of intentionality can become
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: do people ever register on instruments as being conscious when they are not experiencing consciousness?
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sure is
[13:31] Hokon Cazalet: position one is false, the concept of intentionality gives no useful or specific predictions; correct jarapanda [actually husserl discusses that in Ideas I, that not all thoughts are necessarily part of the intentional act]
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): especially if multi tasking
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes jara That is one of the features of consciousness
[13:31] herman Bergson: the distinction between Center and Periphery of attention
[13:31] Jarapanda Snook: right
[13:32] herman Bergson: Such features are open to scientific research....
[13:32] Hokon Cazalet: yup
[13:32] herman Bergson: psychology and neuroscience for instance
[13:33] herman Bergson: And I guess that there is a lot of research going on in that area
[13:34] herman Bergson: A thing I haven't mentioned regarding the unified consciousness is concepts like personal identity and the Self
[13:34] herman Bergson: a complete new chapter....
[13:35] herman Bergson: I think we should discuss Daniel Dennett in relation to this.
[13:35] Jarapanda Snook: is the Self focussed in the peripheral consciousness?
[13:35] herman Bergson: there are theories that what we experience as our Self, is just something the brain makes up afterwards for us
[13:36] Jarapanda Snook: like rationalizing dreams when we wake up?
[13:36] herman Bergson: like the idea that we have a free will is also just a story afterwards....we just believe we have....
[13:36] herman Bergson: something like that ...
[13:36] herman Bergson: I am still studying on these issues..
[13:36] Hokon Cazalet is also
[13:37] Jarapanda Snook: do you mean free will physically or psychologically?
[13:37] herman Bergson: The question do we have a free will? is a hot issue these days
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: question.. if we lost our 5 senses, smell, taste, touch, vision, hearing, would be still be "conscious'?
[13:37] herman Bergson: psychologically
[13:37] Jarapanda Snook: I am sure we would
[13:37] Farv Hallison: hello Rodney
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: so "experience" is just memory?
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: Hi Farv
[13:38] herman Bergson: our idea that it is WE how dicide in all kinds of situations
[13:38] Qwark Allen: oh no! rodney arrived first
[13:38] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: hello Quwark
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: hello Rod
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: lol...hi Qwark
[13:38] herman Bergson: You are too early.....^_^
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: Hi Rodney and Qwark
[13:38] Qwark Allen: sorry delay
[13:38] herman Bergson: Hey Qwark ㋡
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle
[[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: Hi Qwark and Rod and the others
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: since we are at "hellos"
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: Hi Jaelle
[13:38] Jarapanda Snook: it's like The Waltons in here
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...I definitely will discuss the issue of free will with you soon...
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: what is your room, Jara? upperstorey left last but one?
[13:39] herman Bergson: and also the idea that the brain in fact just tells us stories what we call our personal identity...
[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: surely we are free to think what we like, but it is the transition to doing what we like that breaks down
[13:40] herman Bergson: it is even worse Jara.....
[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: I thought so...
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: They are here for Tues lecture.. lol ( I can say that since I was so late also!!!)
[13:40] herman Bergson: They allways come up with the Libett story....
[13:41] Farv Hallison: hello Mistyowl
[13:41] herman Bergson: He discovered that when you decide to move your hand, the brain is already in full action before you are even aware of your wish to move your hand
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hello hugs to all :-)
[13:41] Hokon Cazalet: huggles
[13:42] herman Bergson: So when I say I want to move my hand, my brain already has taken that decision before I said it.
[13:42] Farv Hallison huggs MistyOwl
[13:42] herman Bergson: I still have to look into that matter
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: "by the way, we decided to move you hand."
[13:42] Hokon Cazalet: me too, i find that interesting
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: But that is logical, because the decision to move the hand came from the brain.
[13:42] Jarapanda Snook: but you can think about moving your hand when it doesn't move
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Unless the hand just touch a hot burner, then.....
[13:42] herman Bergson: yes you can ㋡
[13:43] herman Bergson: But philosophically it has a ground....
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: so is the consciousness just for learning and providing general direction?
[13:43] Jarapanda Snook: and you can also think about not moving your hand while you are moving it
[13:43] herman Bergson: when we are just material beings and all is governed by the laws of nature
[13:44] herman Bergson: it means that all processes are determined...also what happens in outr brain...
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is the classic problem of determinism and th epossibility of free will
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: some movements are reflexes
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes Lizzy...completely controlled by the brain itself
[13:45] herman Bergson: as you see ...we still have a few questions to deal with ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: deal
[13:46] Qwark Allen: heehe
[13:46] Qwark Allen: we have more questions, then answers
[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): always
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark, keeps us pretty busy ^_^
[13:46] Qwark Allen: indeed´
[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): there are always questions here after a set of lectures
[13:46] herman Bergson: Does anyone of you still have a question?
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): what is next
[13:47] herman Bergson: Main issues are free will and Dennett....
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: so the consciousness could be seen as a programmer, writing in the program but not causing the actual work to be done?
[13:48] herman Bergson: the picture is more that the brain is a computer and consciousness the software
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: has a déjà vu feeling
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: but if the consciousness doesn't cause, say, movement, but is informed afterwards, then it only provides the general plan
[13:49] druth Vlodovic: so it is actually a step removed from the software
[13:49] Jarapanda Snook: but actions like moving your hand are pre-programmed - like a muscle memory
[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Druth.... some people hold such kinds of ideas...
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think the consciousness is the sixth sense, that takes all the data from the other 5 and translates them into something our brain can use.
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: im curious, what about actions we take that require a choice in less time than it takes for the brain to unconsciously process it? how much of a gap is there?
[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: interesting, Misty
[13:50] herman Bergson: half a second Hokon
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: misty, thats a concept Aristotle had actually, from De Anima =)
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: ok, thats short enough
[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: so my question is void =)
[13:50] herman Bergson: The remark of Misty is questionable
[13:51] Mistyowl Warrhol: Well, it does make sense.
[13:51] Mistyowl Warrhol: What.. you question me ??????? ROFL
[13:51] Jarapanda Snook: the Sixth Sense is about intuition perhaps
[13:51] herman Bergson: The brain is not a sense organ, but an information manipulating unit
[13:51] Farv Hallison rolls on the floor with Mistyowl.
[13:52] herman Bergson: and this information processing in the brain causes consciousness
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: it's been studied a lot due to it's application to automotive safety hokon
[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: hm half a second explains some of the weird stuff we do, such as recognizing ive done something out of habit, yet wrong for this situation
[13:52] herman Bergson: I apologize Misty...^_^
[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: oh ok cool druth, makes sense =)
[13:52] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol
[13:53] Hokon Cazalet: sort of jerked "whoops"
[13:53] Qwark Allen: by that definition, we can extrapolate, that all living beeing with brains, have consciense
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes qwark....depending on the level of development of the central nervous system....
[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: not necessarily - are ants conscious?
[13:54] herman Bergson: Animal consciousnes is a serious subject
[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): they move
[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it is
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ants have no brain
[13:54] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:54] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: ant's probably have no unified consciousness, no real brain
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ants have a brain Qwark :-)
[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: I think they do
[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: fish then
[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes they do
[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: they have ganglia
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes they have a brain...absolutely....
[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: or whatever that stem is called
[13:54] Qwark Allen: was talking more about mamal brains
[13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: and they could have, just not near the stage of development we have.. and depending on the being.
[13:55] herman Bergson: But the test of consciousness is often related to the mirror test
[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: but you would not think of them as being conscioous...
[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): they are extremely clever and organized
[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: or do we me Self-Conscious...
[13:55] herman Bergson: no ants arent conscious in the sense we are....
[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: self aware?
[13:55] Qwark Allen: no doubts about that gemma
[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: individually they are not clever
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: the mirror test seems to rely on the subject doing something we'd recognize as a reasonable response to recognizing itself
[13:56] Jarapanda Snook: they have a hive cleverness we can't comprehend
[13:56] herman Bergson: yes Jara..... when an organism shows self recognistion we must conclude that it has some level of consciousness
[13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: and elephants? We know they remember and grieve?
[13:56] Jaelle Faerye looks at her Werber books
[13:56] Lizzy Pleides: thank god i am not an ant
[13:56] herman Bergson: in that respect....just study the works of Frank de Waal
[13:56] Hokon Cazalet: although something can be conscious without being self-aware [or is the philosophic definition self-awareness? i did find it out we didnt call dreams conscious states . . .]
[13:57] Jarapanda Snook: elephants, dogs and dolphins - I think those are the only self aware anomals
[13:57] Hokon Cazalet: find it odd*
[13:57] herman Bergson: he is an expert in animal behavior, especiallly chimps
[13:57] herman Bergson: chimpansees too Jara
[13:57] Jarapanda Snook: yes sorry
[13:57] herman Bergson: But for instance an Orang Oetang not
[13:57] Qwark Allen: and all wales
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: if we tried the morror test on an animal that had some sort of superstitious fear about seeing another "me" as a bad thing then a "reasonable response" would be to attack it lol
[13:58] herman Bergson: The whale is a very special creature....
[13:58] herman Bergson: it is the only creative animal as far as I know.....
[13:58] herman Bergson: it sings songs...I suppose to communicate....
[13:58] Jarapanda Snook: they have a level of consciousness we would find it hard to comprehend
[13:58] Qwark Allen: whales have the most sofisticated language of the planet
[13:59] herman Bergson: but not like a bird always sings its same old song...the whale composes new ones all thetime
[13:59] herman Bergson: somehting like that , yes
[13:59] Hokon Cazalet: herman, this may have been explained already (and ive only explored consciousness with continental works), what's the definition of consciousness in this discussion?
[13:59] Qwark Allen: and they have cultural language also
[13:59] Qwark Allen: like some talk french and other english
[14:00] druth Vlodovic: or maybe some animals are intelligent enough to know that they cannot be in two places at the same time, so they dismiss out of hand the idea that it might be "me"
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: where elephants have a very low infra sounds that can be heard by others very far and have some kind of respect for their deads
[14:00] Lizzy Pleides: true Jaelle
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: they recognize and greet the bones of their dead ones when they meet them
[14:00] herman Bergson: Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative subjective states and processes of sentience and awareness
[14:00] Qwark Allen: you know rhinos are descendants of early whales?
[14:01] Hokon Cazalet: hm ok
[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): getting way off track
[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: i think we are just discovering things
[14:01] herman Bergson: looks at his watch.....
[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: each and every day
[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 'right
[14:01] herman Bergson: we are a bit late....
[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: and that in a few decades maybe all will laugh at those theories about consciousness
[14:02] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: and on this note
[14:02] Hokon Cazalet: AHH!!!!
[14:02] herman Bergson: Time to thank you all for your participation.....
[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: i wish you all a pleasant time
[[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be here tuesday if I can
[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): if not thursday as usual
[14:02] Jarapanda Snook: Thank you Herman
[14:02] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...
[14:02] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[14:02] Qwark Allen: thank you
[14:02] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: thank you, herman
[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Gemma

377: Consciousness and Unity

2012-01-31T20:42:00.002+01:00

Consciousness has three aspects that make it different from other biological phenomena, and indeed different from other phenomena in the natural world.

These three aspects are qualitativeness, subjectivity, and unity. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.

Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -

This unity, what is meant by that? Philosophers love to talk about mental states. Common sense thinking concludes ..ok so consciousness is a multitude of mental states.

We are inclined to believe that mental states are a kind of stand alone states, as if consciousness is a kind of big container with all kinds of states on board.

But while thinking about the text of this lecture I also can feel a pain in my fingertip, while I have cut myself, but yet I go on formulating sentences.

In other words, all conscious experiences at any given point in an person's life come as part of one unified conscious field.

If I am sitting at my desk looking out the window, I do not just see the sky above and a backyard and a lawn,

and at the same time feel the pressure of my body against the chair, the shirt against my back, and the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth, rather I experience all of these as part of a single unified conscious field.

So, when thinking of all these "separate" conscious states, in fact I am thinking of just a number of different centers of consciousness.

It is a remarkable fact that within my conscious field at any given time I can shift my attention at will from one aspect to another.

So for example, right now I am not paying any attention to the pressure of the shoes on my feet or the feeling of the shirt on my neck. But I can shift my attention to them any time I want.

An interesting problem related to our experiencing the unity of consciousness is called the "binding problem" or how the unity of conscious perception is brought about by the distributed activities of the central nervous system.

When I see an animal, brain scans show that a number of separate areas in the brain are active. Yet we don't experience a kind of puzzle in ourselves, which we have to put together. We just see a tiger and the environment.

Just as the visual system binds all of the different stimulus inputs into a single unified visual percept, so the entire brain somehow unites all of the variety of our different stimulus inputs into a single unified conscious experience.

This kind of instantaneous unity has to be distinguished from the organized unification of conscious sequences that we get from short term memory.

For example, when I speak a sentence I have to be able to remember the beginning of the sentence at the time I get to the end if I am to produce coherent speech.

Whereas instantaneous unity is essential to, and is part of, the definition of consciousness, organized unity across time is essential to the healthy functioning of the conscious organism, but it is not necessary for the very existence of conscious subjectivity. Also people with memory problems are conscious persons.

This combined feature of qualitative, unified subjectivity is the essence of consciousness and it, more than anything else, is what makes consciousness different from other phenomena studied by the natural sciences.

The problem is to explain how brain processes, which are objective third person biological, chemical and electrical processes, produce subjective states of feeling and thinking.

How does the brain get us over the hump, so to speak, from events in the synaptic cleft and the ion channels to conscious thoughts and feelings?

This qualitative, subjective unity, which we experience as our consciousness and emphatically this unity, may perhaps be one of the biggest neuroscientific challenges.

The Discussion

[2012/01/24 13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[2012/01/24 13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..the floor is yours
[2012/01/24 13:22] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant again!
[2012/01/24 13:23] harmoniasophia Scribe whispers: Hi everyone
[2012/01/24 13:23] Farv Hallison: Thank you Prof Bergson.
[2012/01/24 13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you , Lizzy
[2012/01/24 13:23] Jarapanda Snook: well done Herman - that will set me thinking for days
[2012/01/24 13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and ty herman
[2012/01/24 13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[2012/01/24 13:23] herman Bergson: That sounds good Jara
[2012/01/24 13:24] herman Bergson: But the unity of consciousness is to me the greatest mystery....
[2012/01/24 13:24] Mick Nerido: Do u think we will ever know how a brain becomes concious?
[2012/01/24 13:24] herman Bergson: THAT is the big question Mick....
[2012/01/24 13:25] Jarapanda Snook: What is The Id? Is that the part that we know as a cognitive unity, despite it comprising of nothing more than electrical pulses?
[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: We know how molecules can get in a state of liquidity....we know the conditions...
[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: Well Jara...that is the point....
[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: how do these braincells do it....
[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: the thing is....
[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: not a single brain scans shows whatever unity...
[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: But yet we experience it....
[2012/01/24 13:26] Farv Hallison: Can a string of zeros and ones become conscious?
[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: I would say NO...Farv...
[2012/01/24 13:26] Lizzy Pleides: nods*
[2012/01/24 13:27] Jarapanda Snook: If a series of electrical impulses in out brains can become conscious, can a computer ?
[2012/01/24 13:27] herman Bergson: for the simple reason that they are produced in chips....not in th ecomplexuity of our brain
[2012/01/24 13:27] Jaelle Faerye: i think if they could, our computers would have told us
[2012/01/24 13:27] herman Bergson: You all are going too fast....!
[2012/01/24 13:27] Jarapanda Snook: well - what if the computer senses itself, regardless of the fact that it is in a load of chips?
[2012/01/24 13:27] Farv Hallison: What if the values keep changing so if you watch them closely you can decode a message?
[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: part of the processes in the brain is electircal...
[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: but that is not the whole brain
[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: We love to compare the brain with a computer and the mind with the computer program....
[2012/01/24 13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: Is the function of consciousness, really something that evolved to help processs what our senses have picked up, so we can decide which data we have received is a threat vs food?
[2012/01/24 13:29] Lizzy Pleides: it can only be a simulation or a copy of our consciousness
[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: it is a simplification in my opinion
[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy....of course computers can simulate waht a brain does....
[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: but it still is a symbol shuffling machine....
[2012/01/24 13:30] herman Bergson: with no understanding at all
[2012/01/24 13:30] Agnos (agnos): Thank you Herman
[2012/01/24 13:30] Jarapanda Snook: but how do we know that a computer of the future would not reach a level of complexity at which it becomes conscious?
[2012/01/24 13:30] harmoniasophia Scribe: isn't the brain a symbol shuffling machine also?
[2012/01/24 13:30] herman Bergson: I don't think that such suggestions ar erelevant, Jara....
[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: We also could say...
[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: how do we know how the homo sapiens will continue his evolution.....and grow wings for instance
[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: no Harmonia , the brain isn't….
[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: the brain works with meanings...symbols have meanings
[2012/01/24 13:32] harmoniasophia Scribe: meaning is a symbol
[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: for a computer no symbol has any meaning....
[2012/01/24 13:32] harmoniasophia Scribe: you cannot have one without the other
[2012/01/24 13:32] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): *smiles
[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: it is us who assign meaning to what appears on the screen
[2012/01/24 13:33] Sybyle Perdide: the pc is not the point.. imagine we have one, complex enough to "imitate" the brain.. what we need too, is a software.. and there we are again at the point were we are now
[2012/01/24 13:33] Jarapanda Snook: how will homo sapiens evolve further, Herman. All of Darwin's forces have been taken out of our condition.
[2012/01/24 13:33] harmoniasophia Scribe: when we speak of happiness we never speak of happiness in itself- e always reference it to something that causes our happiness - the form from which it was received - we identify objects with meaning
[2012/01/24 13:34] herman Bergson: yes, harmonia....
[2012/01/24 13:34] Lizzy Pleides: why objects?
[2012/01/24 13:34] herman Bergson: and Sybyle...I only can point at th eChinese room agrument of John Searle here
[2012/01/24 13:35] herman Bergson: Do you think so, Jara....?
[2012/01/24 13:35] harmoniasophia Scribe: so our shuffles symbols by way of the meaning which is inteconnected to how we felt
[2012/01/24 13:35] harmoniasophia Scribe: our brain^^
[2012/01/24 13:36] herman Bergson: if evolution is an interaction between organism and environment we still see evolution
[2012/01/24 13:36] Lizzy Pleides: we probably think in associations but is it an object always?
[2012/01/24 13:36] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is this John Rogers Searle?
[2012/01/24 13:36] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): (wikipedia)
[2012/01/24 13:36] harmoniasophia Scribe: however abstract the symbol is - it still is an object
[2012/01/24 13:36] herman Bergson: At least John Searle, Mick…don't know that second firstname
[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm
[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Born 1932?
[2012/01/24 13:37] Lizzy Pleides: for the computer i agree
[2012/01/24 13:37] herman Bergson: yes 1932
[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes that must be him then :)
[2012/01/24 13:38] Farv Hallison: That is a nice year, when the neutron was duiscovered/
[2012/01/24 13:38] herman Bergson: the neutron or the neuron Farv?
[2012/01/24 13:39] Farv Hallison: neutron.
[2012/01/24 13:39] herman Bergson: ok
[2012/01/24 13:39] herman Bergson: You mean it was discovered in 1932?
[2012/01/24 13:39] Jaelle Faerye wishes she would have invented the neuron
[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: Well anyway....to get back to consciousness...
[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: We experience ourselves as one person...an "I", a self....
[2012/01/24 13:40] Farv Hallison: nuclear physics was invented because thety knew the the nucleous was mage of protons and neutrons.
[2012/01/24 13:40] Jarapanda Snook: yes - and how do you see how future human evolution will affect what we call consciousness?
[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: That is the hardest thing to explain neuroscientifically
[2012/01/24 13:41] Jarapanda Snook: Herman - how do you see how future human evolution will affect what we now call consciousness?
[2012/01/24 13:42] herman Bergson: That is a very complex issue Jara.....
[2012/01/24 13:42] Jarapanda Snook: and one i ponder often...
[2012/01/24 13:42] herman Bergson: on the one hand the human brain is inits basic responses to its environment still at the level of the chimpanse
[2012/01/24 13:43] Mick Nerido: Is consciousness an inevitable result in our universe?
[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: on the other hand we have the development of civilisation....
[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: I would say it is a coincidence Mick
[2012/01/24 13:43] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): People say then man has evolved very little in 100,000 years
[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: not a necessary result of the configuration of matter
[2012/01/24 13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: But unfortunately, humans have learned to control their personal enviorment.. so they are losing the ability to adapt.
[2012/01/24 13:44] Mick Nerido: yiu mean it did not have to happen...
[2012/01/24 13:44] Jarapanda Snook: excatly, Misty - my point precisely.
[2012/01/24 13:44] herman Bergson: I don't agree with you Misty..
[2012/01/24 13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: We live in air conditioned homes and drive air conditioned vehicles..we do not adapt to extremes any more.
[2012/01/24 13:45] herman Bergson: But there is a big distance between different aspects of our way of being.....
[2012/01/24 13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I think I know what Misty is saying
[2012/01/24 13:45] herman Bergson: Ah in that way....
[2012/01/24 13:45] Jarapanda Snook: we now control our environment and protect the weak, so I propose that we may not evolve much further at all
[2012/01/24 13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): ooh
[2012/01/24 13:45] harmoniasophia Scribe: we do?
[2012/01/24 13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: But those that live, say in Alaska or africa and have not the modern things, they will still be able to evolve.
[2012/01/24 13:46] herman Bergson: well Jara....we grow older than our ancestors to begin with
[2012/01/24 13:46] Sybyle Perdide: why not, Jara?
[2012/01/24 13:46] Jarapanda Snook: what evolutionary forces are going to encourage humans to become, for example, more intelligent?
[2012/01/24 13:47] Farv Hallison: We will let the non conforists die because they can't afford healthcare.
[2012/01/24 13:47] Jarapanda Snook: that is due to increases in public health
[2012/01/24 13:47] Mistyowl Warrhol: But As Jara is implying, where the weak used to die off, now they live and so it is not the strong that survive and reproduce.
[2012/01/24 13:47] Sybyle Perdide: may be not more intelligent, but intelligent in another way
[2012/01/24 13:47] Mick Nerido: We are all accidental ....
[2012/01/24 13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on...!!!
[2012/01/24 13:47] Mick Nerido: not inevitable
[2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: This is not right!
[2012/01/24 13:48] harmoniasophia Scribe: evolution is the process of exchanging equal and opposite effects - that this is the case - it nets zero - gives the appearance of pregress but is equal regress - and to the one who sees it as the case is doing the same thing over and expecting different results
[2012/01/24 13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: but it is bad, that everyone has a chance now..?
[2012/01/24 13:48] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): this is a bit off-topic but still interesting
[2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: Does anyone know Stephan Hawkins???
[2012/01/24 13:48] Lizzy Pleides: yes
[2012/01/24 13:48] Sybyle Perdide: this frustrated man?
[2012/01/24 13:48] Hokon Cazalet: yes
[2012/01/24 13:48] Mick Nerido: yes
[2012/01/24 13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: Love Doc, Hawkins, my idol !!!
[2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: One of the greatest astrosientists of this century...
[2012/01/24 13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes i know him
[2012/01/24 13:48] Jarapanda Snook: of course
[2012/01/24 13:48] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Some say he is the most famous man in the world
[2012/01/24 13:49] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): or... the most recognizable perhaps
[2012/01/24 13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: For sure the most intelligent
[2012/01/24 13:49] Jarapanda Snook: and amazing considering his health problems
[2012/01/24 13:49] herman Bergson: He would have been dead as we wouldn't have kept the weak alive and took care of them
[2012/01/24 13:49] Hokon Cazalet: correct herman
[2012/01/24 13:49] herman Bergson: there wouldnt have been that great scientist
[2012/01/24 13:49] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): But without reproduction there is no evolution
[2012/01/24 13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: As I said, is it wrong to let the weak survive?
[2012/01/24 13:50] herman Bergson: SO I guess that the weak - strong dichotomy is a bit obsolete today
[2012/01/24 13:50] harmoniasophia Scribe: Hawkins is a joke
[2012/01/24 13:50] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aww thats not nice
[2012/01/24 13:50] harmoniasophia Scribe: the truth sometimes hurts
[2012/01/24 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can you say that Harmonia
[2012/01/24 13:50] Hokon Cazalet: i'd also add, evolution does not favor intelligence or strength in themselves, what can survive until it reproduces it what goes on - what works this century may not the next
[2012/01/24 13:50] herman Bergson: No Harmonia...that is an argumentum ad hominen....forbiddenin this class
[2012/01/24 13:51] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): lol
[2012/01/24 13:51] Jarapanda Snook: I suspect that as soon as humanity reached a certain point, when it became civilised and conscious, the natural forces of Darwinism were diminished
[2012/01/24 13:51] harmoniasophia Scribe: In so far as psychology is concerned - I wholly agree with Einstein - we cannot fix a problem with the same mind that created it - and that is the case with all mans knowledge - he just continually excerbates the problem
[2012/01/24 13:51] herman Bergson: frowns....
[2012/01/24 13:52] herman Bergson: that is a kind of metaphysics Jara....
[2012/01/24 13:52] Hokon Cazalet: i think so jara, given that we don't have isolated populations, we make ourselves more and more immune to changes in the enviroment [we make nature change for us], etc
[2012/01/24 13:52] herman Bergson: you presuppose some kind of reality here with forces and so on.....
[2012/01/24 13:52] Farv Hallison: no, we are still evolving by letting the fittest corporations survive.
[2012/01/24 13:53] herman Bergson: Besides that....any evolution takes thousands of years...
[2012/01/24 13:53] Hokon Cazalet: yup
[2012/01/24 13:53] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): We can read faster than one person can write but not as fast as 10 can write
[2012/01/24 13:53] herman Bergson: we can t see the changes
[2012/01/24 13:53] harmoniasophia Scribe: oh Hokon that is merely the opposite side of the see saw - eventually we will push it past the limit and the sides will reverse
[2012/01/24 13:53] Hokon Cazalet: dunno, oxygen producers were quite successful in changing this planet . . .
[2012/01/24 13:53] Jarapanda Snook: NO - I simply imply that Man has reached a certain point, and we won't evolve much further. SO speculation about us developing into super beings is irrelevant
[2012/01/24 13:53] Lizzy Pleides: we can watch differences in thinking between tge generations
[2012/01/24 13:54] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): society is changing rapidly
[2012/01/24 13:54] Hokon Cazalet: evolution doesn't imply super-beings btw, there isn't an Aristotelian ladder
[2012/01/24 13:54] harmoniasophia Scribe: and eventually the planet will compemsate for our theft and push back
[2012/01/24 13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some changes are being seen, as we have better health, we are seeing ppl with higher intelligence and taller bodies, even in the last 100 years.
[2012/01/24 13:54] Jarapanda Snook: I also suspect that this level of consciousness may be a limiting point for all intelligence in the Universe
[2012/01/24 13:54] herman Bergson: Evolution is a randomprocess without a goal...so superbeings...why that direction?
[2012/01/24 13:55] Lizzy Pleides: exactly herman!
[2012/01/24 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: maybe eventually we return to the sea
[2012/01/24 13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): No goal ... I agree
[2012/01/24 13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Dawkins says that
[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: Oh does he..lol
[2012/01/24 13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: I would love the return to the sea :)
[2012/01/24 13:55] Mick Nerido: Most mutations are harmful...
[2012/01/24 13:55] harmoniasophia Scribe: herman when you blow up a balloon past its resistance it will burst - not because it is intelligent or has a goal - but because it has a limit
[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: yes...never rainy days anymore!
[2012/01/24 13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: evolution is a direct response to our eviroment.
[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: Well my friends.....
[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...
[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: A lot to think about....
[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: awwwww I was so enjoying this
[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: all will be in the blog , if you want to reread it
[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: Thanks Herman for your time
[2012/01/24 13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: We were just getting started :-)
[2012/01/24 13:56] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, a nice get - together
[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: hehe
[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: This was a great discussion indeed Jara...
[2012/01/24 13:57] Mick Nerido: Thank herman good lecture!
[2012/01/24 13:57] Jarapanda Snook: I thoroughly enjoyed that
[2012/01/24 13:57] herman Bergson: so thank you all for you terrific participation....
[2012/01/24 13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[2012/01/24 13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thank you! Herman
[2012/01/24 13:57] harmoniasophia Scribe: lol
[2012/01/24 13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: awwww sniff
[2012/01/24 13:57] Farv Hallison: Thank you for being provocative.
[2012/01/24 13:57] Jaelle Faerye: thanks all
[2012/01/24 13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanky Herman
[2012/01/24 13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY, Herman. for a very thought provoking topic :-)
[2012/01/24 13:57] Hokon Cazalet: lol, i just got here, i always fail when i say "i'll be there in just a moment"
[[2012/01/24 13:58] herman Bergson: Allunanswered questions and remarks of you will keep your brain going....
[2012/01/24 13:58] Hokon Cazalet needs a watch
[2012/01/24 13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Bye everyone
[2012/01/24 13:58] Jaelle Faerye: bye Merlin

375: Consciousness and Subjectivity

2012-01-23T14:30:00.001+01:00

Consciousness has three aspects that make it different from other biological phenomena, and indeed different from other phenomena in the natural world.

These three aspects are qualitativeness, subjectivity, and unity. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.

Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -

Previous lecture I elaborated on the qualitative feature of consciousness. Closely related to this feature is the fact that conscious states only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal subject. In that sense, they are essentially subjective.

When two people listen to a concert or look at a painting their experiences may be identical qualitatively in the sense, what is it like to listen to a concert or look at a painting.

But additionally both persons add their subjectivity to that experience, which makes the experiences unique for every person.

Because conscious states are subjective in this sense, they have what I will call a first-person ontology, as opposed to the third-person ontology of mountains and molecules, which can exist even if no living creatures exist.

Subjective conscious states have a first-person ontology ("ontology" here means mode of existence) because they only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal agent.

They are experienced by some "I" that has the experience, and it is in that sense that they have a first-person ontology.

Many philosophers and scientists also think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness.

For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.

It looks as if there is no objective knowledge possible of consciousness. However this is a mistake, caused by the ambiguous use of the subjective - objective distinction.

In one sense, the epistemic sense ("epistemic" here means having to do with knowledge), science is indeed objective.

Scientists seek truths that are equally accessible to any competent observer and that are independent of the feelings and attitudes of the experimenters in question.

"Rutte is the prime minister of the Netherlands" and "Rutte is a good prime minister" are two statements. The first one is epistemic objective, the second one is subjective, because it is a personal opinion.

But there is another sense of the objective-subjective distinction, and that is the ontological sense ("ontological" here means having to do with existence).

Some entities, such as pains, tickles, and itches, have a subjective mode of existence, in the sense that they exist only as experienced by a conscious subject.

Others, such as mountains, molecules and tectonic plates have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence does not depend on any consciousness.

From this we can conclude that the ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain.

Although the physician does not feel your pain, which is a subjective experience, he yet can have objective knowledge about your pain and its causes and help you.

Thus the subjectivity of consciousness does not exclude the possibility of objective knowledge about consciousness.

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:20] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:20] Qwark Allen: seems we got back to dualism
[13:21] herman Bergson: The basic idea here is that if consciousness the result is of a biological process in the brain we can gain objective knowledge about the subjective mental states
[13:21] herman Bergson: No Qwark...
[13:21] herman Bergson: Only when you would agree with David Chalmers' ideas.
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yeah, Im not sure what dualism is
[13:22] Qwark Allen: objectivity/subjectivity
[13:22] herman Bergson: Dualism means that we have a body ...material....and a mind.....not material
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm something to do with Descartes as I remember
[13:23] herman Bergson: The dualist claims thus that ontologically there are two substances in the world...
[13:23] herman Bergson: material and mental substances
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Merlin that is Descartes..
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): mm good :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: This idea of dualism is abandoned by almost all philosophers of mind and neuroscientists and so on
[13:24] herman Bergson: However David Chalmers is one of the few who defends some kind of dualism
[13:24] Mick Nerido: If we could mind read would that prove dualism or objectivism?
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: it was too easy probably
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most people still have a dualist idea about body and mind Lizzy
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): last time you told us we don't have a mind..and now you do..
[13:25] herman Bergson: while among scientists this idea is discarded completely
[13:26] herman Bergson: looks puzzled at Beertje
[13:26] herman Bergson: I hope I didnt Beertje
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you did
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: how can science be objective but the scientists are not?
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): hahaha... look in the notes
[13:26] Qwark Allen: there was something about its definition
[13:26] herman Bergson: What I may have said is that we better can use the term consciousness than mind
[13:26] herman Bergson: because mind has so many meanings
[13:26] Qwark Allen: not mind, but conscience, i think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But if you take mind to be synonymous with consciousness there is no problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: I prefer consciousness because it also is a neurobiological concept
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: wordbaggage
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....and the word Mind has a long history in philosophy
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what is consciousness to a neurobiologist?
[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Druth
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think the picture answers your question
[13:30] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:30] Qwark Allen: Hey! misty
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: hello Misty
[13:30] Jaelle Faerye: hiya Misty
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hugss everyone
[13:30] herman Bergson: Hello Misty ㋡
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: pretty :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: fascinating picture isnt it Druth?
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): 13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:31] herman Bergson: as I said....
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: hmm good point beertje
[13:32] herman Bergson: I want to drop the WORD mind....not the phenomenon which we call mind or consciousness ㋡
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): confusing...
[13:32] Clerisse Beeswing: like braintease
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: "for everything there is a season, and a purpose under heaven" :-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...I understand
[13:33] herman Bergson: just to prevent confusion I prefer to use the word consciousness above mind
[13:33] Claudei: Hello
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: hi Claudei
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hello Claudia
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: hello Claudei
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: hi Claudei
[13:34] Clerisse Beeswing: Hello clauden
[13:34] herman Bergson: So our point today is that we can have objective knowlege of subjective experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but there are strict limits I suppose
[13:35] herman Bergson: In fact is that what all neuroscientists do every day when studying the brain/consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Any questions?
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds for me as if we would describe consciousness with its borders without knowing the inner area
[13:37] herman Bergson: we dont know much about consciousness Sybyle....
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thats what I got, Herman :))
[13:37] herman Bergson: What we know is that it is generated by the brain....
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): its kinda hard to concentrate :)
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: so far I can follow
[13:38] herman Bergson: we know about a correlation between subjective experiences and objective fMRI scannner results...
[13:38] herman Bergson: the picture behind me is an interesting example of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: but what we absolutely don't know is how the material brain can generate that what we experience as consciousness
[13:39] herman Bergson: but philosophically ...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is....
[13:39] herman Bergson: what we call consciousness....in what sense does it exist?
[13:39] herman Bergson: what IS it....
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): physically, no?
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: good question..sighs
[13:40] Mick Nerido: and why should it exist?
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): a function of brain activity
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Physically..in a material sense
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Its a mysterious thing
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): what other sense is there?
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: and does it exist in other places in the universe or just on planet earth?
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): What about plants
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is that a stupid question?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Francis Crick , I think it was, suggested that it was the 40Hz eleoctroning vibration or something like that in the brain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: No Merlin that is not a stupid question...
[13:41] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): but if fMRI shows it as physical activity, what's the issue?
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aaah ty.
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): there are no stupid questions at all
[13:42] herman Bergson: The issue is, Penelope, that the fMRI scan shows only part of consciousness
[13:42] herman Bergson: For example....
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some plants do sense things..so there could be a form of plant conscious.
[13:42] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): so ok, in ten years, they'll make a better MRI :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: there never has shown up an "I", a "Self" on an fMRI scan
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like chaos theory
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the issue is that people think they are their consciousness and want to know themselves as something other than the effect of physical processes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Druth ..and reality is that they aren't
[13:43] herman Bergson: We are the result of physical processes
[13:43] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): agreed :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: But indeed many people have great difficulty with that....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: it is like the question: where ends the universe and what is on the other side
[13:44] herman Bergson: due to religious ideas
[13:44] herman Bergson: nice question Lizzy....yes!
[13:44] Mick Nerido: The physical world behaves very strange at the micro and macro levels
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean with strange Mick
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: So is consciousness something the evolve as a protection process?
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Quantum physics for example
[13:45] herman Bergson: You only can qualify something as strange when you have a standard for normal
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahh..yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There seems to be something with matter that confuses us...
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): ooh mysty, YES
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): yes yes!
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): smart!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Laws of nature enable us to predict every outcome of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: however ...Quantum Physics seems to show us that we cant predict everythinng of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: that there is a basic randomness
[13:47] Mick Nerido: The material world is filled with mystery, Black holes, consciousness etc...
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: My consciousness is a black hole right now and a mystery I am still awake :-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:48] herman Bergson: Just realize that what we call science these days is hardly 300 years old
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Misty I like that!
[13:49] herman Bergson: that compared with a history of million years of the homo sapiens in evolution
[13:49] Claudei: homo sapiens is not a million years old
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): did they never think about this matter in earlier years?
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: but his evolution
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: or her evolution
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: and so much that we have learned of humans has only really been in the last 100 years or less.
[13:50] Claudei: how far into species evolution are you going
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: in other cultures they didn't have science?
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first toolmakers existed 2.4 million years ago
[13:50] herman Bergson: Use of fire 1 million years ago
[13:50] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): hey that's a good question Lizzy asked
[13:50] Claudei: he wasn't homo sapiens
[13:50] Qwark Allen: how you know that?
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is a good question indeed Lizzy...
[13:51] herman Bergson: To give you an example....
[13:51] Mick Nerido: i think he means our direct ancestors
[13:51] herman Bergson: till 1100 A.D the Arab culture was far more developed in science than the european...
[13:51] herman Bergson: they had great mathematicians....
[13:51] Qwark Allen: there was homo sapiens half million years ago
[13:52] herman Bergson: Then is vanished...
[13:52] herman Bergson: and the knowledge was through Spain exported to Europe
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: even the egytians had, think of the pyramides
[13:52] Mick Nerido: all our tool have extended our senses and expanded or conciousness
[13:52] herman Bergson: The Chinese had great science...
[13:52] Qwark Allen: and much before that
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but had they great philosophers too?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just their knowledge didn`t got to our days
[13:53] herman Bergson: But the europeans had some aggressive exploring drive...
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just in time rodney
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: So the fact that some animals also use tools.. does that give credit that they might also have consciousness?
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: hi Rodney
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Misty...to some extend certainly
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle
[13:54] herman Bergson: There are even animals that have self awareness....recognize themselves in a mirror
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Rod :)
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Lizzy
[13:55] herman Bergson: Welcome Rodney..:)
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or duck and run when they have been caught doing something bad!!! Bad conscious... Sorry, couldnt resist.
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hello Rodney
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: but animals that aren't able to recognize themselves have individual beheviours
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: it'll be another blow to our ego to have to share consciouness with animals, then bugs :)
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Beertie
[13:55] herman Bergson: I was just ready to end the discussion... ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Great class thanks Herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Hi Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very good
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why is it a blow to our ego ?
[13:56] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...we have a high esteem of ourselves indeed due to our consciousness
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we are animals too
[13:56] Qwark Allen: see what i mean, by just in time rodney
[13:56] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:56] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:56] Clerisse Beeswing: great class herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Beertje....don't underestimate the chimpansees ^_^
[13:57] herman Bergson: So...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: well, I suspect low esteem, otherwise it wouldn't bother us so much
[13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: Lots to think about and I only got part of the class.
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thanks Herman.. much to think about :)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: we just share 99.5% of our genes with them
[[13:57] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..and we behave like them too :-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: eehehhe indeed
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....
[13:58] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: wow...so soon
[13:58] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:58] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday it is!
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: I am in hurry, .. good night everybody!
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight every one
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: night Lizzy
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: waves*
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Lizzy and Beertje..TC
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: Night Beertje :)
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): waves:)))
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: and anyone else :-)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Anyone have notes on the first part?
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: it will be on the blog, Misty
[14:00] herman Bergson: I have a blog Misty
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ah ok. ty. Sorry for being late, but had appt with oral surg and just got home and straight to computer.
[14:00] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have the notes from 1 week ago
[14:01] herman Bergson: url is in my profile
[14:01] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I dont know if that that was the first one
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, knew about the blog, just dense today LOL
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: I can go back and read up on old lectures :-)
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY Merline :-)
[14:02] Mistyowl Warrhol: humm, Merlin ! Sorry for mistype.
[14:03] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): :)
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC all. til we meet again.. hugs :-)
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: you too
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[14:04] druth Vlodovic: have fun guys
[14:04] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, I must go too. Bye all.
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ty Sybyle and I will start readin today lol
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Merlin
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: bye Druth
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Merlin and Druth
[14:05] herman Bergson: Bye Druth]
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: bye Herman
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious how it will continue, Herman
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: thanks again
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: see you next week :)
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: good bye :)

374: Cosciousness and Qualitativity

2012-01-19T20:30:00.000+01:00

373: Consciousness defined

2012-01-17T16:46:00.001+01:00

"As recently as about the 70s there was little interest among neuroscientists, philosophers, psychologists and cognitive scientists generally in the problem of consciousness.

Reasons for the resistance to the problem varied from discipline to discipline. Philosophers had turned to the analysis of language,

psychologists had become convinced that a scientific psychology must be a science of behavior, and cognitive scientists took their research program to be the discovery of the computer programs in the brain that, they thought, would explain cognition.

It seemed especially puzzling that neuroscientists should be reluctant to deal with the problem of consciousness, because one of the chief functions of the brain is to cause

and sustain conscious states. Studying the brain without studying consciousness would be like studying the stomach without studying digestion, or studying genetics without studying the inheritance of traits", according to John Searle.

Brian cells or the discovery of new neurotransmitter were good subjects for neuroscientific investigation, but consciousness seemed to be too elusive.

This picture has changed dramatically and we can ask now the question, what exactly is the neurobiological problem of consciousness?

The problem, in its crudest terms, is this: How exactly do brain processes cause conscious states and how exactly are those states realized in brain structures?

If we regard consciousness as a biological phenomenon, this sounds similar to other biological problems, for instance, concerning micro-organisms: How, exactly, do they cause disease symptoms and how are those symptoms manifested in patient?

A closely related question is, what exactly are the neurobiological correlates of conscious states, and which of those correlates are actually causally responsible for the production of consciousness?

With respect to the correlation between neurobiological states and conscious states does the picture behind me show what enormous progress has been made in neuroscience.

The neurologist Steven Laureys, head of the Coma Science Group of the University of Luik in Belgium has succeeded to localize the brain areas which correlate with the state of consciousness of a person.

Of course, there are a number of definitions of consciousness. Some authors use the word only to refer to states of self consciousness, which means the consciousness that humans and some primates have of themselves as agents.

Some use it to refer to the second-order mental states about other mental states; so according to this definition, a pain would not be a conscious state, but worrying about a pain would be a conscious state.

John Searle defines consciousness thus: Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness.

Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep - and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma or otherwise become "unconscious."

It includes all of the enormous variety of the awareness that we think of as characteristic of our waking life. It includes everything from feeling a pain, to perceiving objects visually,

to states of anxiety and depression, to working out cross word puzzles, playing chess, trying to remember your aunt's phone number, arguing about politics, or to just wishing you were somewhere else.

Dreams on this definition are a form of consciousness, though of course they are in many respects quite different from waking consciousness.

However, Consciousness has three aspects that make it different from other biological phenomena, and indeed different from other phenomena in the natural world.

These three aspects are qualitativeness, subjectivity, and unity. I'll discuss them in the next lecture.

The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: fantastic Herman!
[13:19] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you =)
[13:19] herman Bergson: the floor is yours ㋡
[13:20] herman Bergson: Well I ant to add one thought to this....
[13:20] herman Bergson: I just got is a moment ago...
[13:21] herman Bergson: the brain causes consciousness…and the brain is a material thing....
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano: Well... the triangle in the image behind you is the area where visual, tactile and aural information meet... the place where we hold our model of our surroundings.
[13:21] herman Bergson: Now consider this.....
[13:21] herman Bergson: h2o molecules can be in a frozen state.....
[13:22] herman Bergson: certain conditions and we know it is tempreture...pretty simple cause liquidity of the h2o molecules...
[13:22] herman Bergson: so ...
[13:23] herman Bergson: the fundamental object of neuroscientific resueach could be to discover the conditions which generate consciousness...
[13:23] herman Bergson: generated by the matter of our brain...
[13:23] herman Bergson: immense complex issue , but theoretically?
[13:23] Sousinne Ceriano: Absolutely
[13:23] herman Bergson: well..this as addendum ^_^
[13:24] herman Bergson: Now it is your turn ㋡
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: But I would say that the area pointed out is not solely responsible for generating consciousness.
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: but?
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: It is our model of our surroundings. Anytime we are active physically, we use it
[13:24] herman Bergson: that is true Soussinne
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: Which explains the different situations on the map
[13:25] herman Bergson: But this is what the fMRI scanner shows as brain activity in conscious or unconscious persons
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: But when we are doing abstract thought, it likely happens elsewhere
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I cannot see why philosophers need to be interested in exactly where in the brain things take place
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Only brain surgeons need to consider it
[13:26] herman Bergson: They aren't Merlin....I am ㋡
[13:26] Sousinne Ceriano: We know, for example, that the parts of sensory input that we are directly aware of are those in the thalamus
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: we have overlappings in several disciplines
[13:26] herman Bergson: Reason for this is that I started with a materialist idea of the mind
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: Materialism roxx0rs =)
[13:27] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Lizzy that is another aspect…
[13:28] herman Bergson: You cant be just a philosopher or psychologist or neuroscientist as such...
[13:28] herman Bergson: all fields overlap...are related
[13:28] herman Bergson: And Merlin....
[13:28] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: another answer to your question.....kind of funny...
[13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: If one attempts to separate them too much, then one is seeing a part of the whole.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes WAS interested in WHERE body and mind were related..
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: so consciousness depends, partially on overlapping sytsems?
[13:29] herman Bergson: He even dissected human brains to find the spot
[13:29] Jaelle Faerye: i wonder something
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: Consciousness happens in self-referring systems.
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is a neurobiological issue Sybyle.....
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: Frege and Russell were systematically avoiding precisely that which would have made their theories amazing.
[13:31] herman Bergson: What is philosophically important here is that consciousness is caused by the brain as a biological process...
[13:31] herman Bergson: in the previous lecture I discussed the ontological status of consciousness
[13:31] herman Bergson: just like you can question the ontological status of liquidity…
[13:31] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I need a dictionary :)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: thats normal Merlin
[13:32] herman Bergson: it is a feature of matter....
[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: if we can explain everything with physics and chemistry we dont need philosophy anymore ...
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: Sure we do.
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: sorry to play "mouche du coche" here
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: but
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: what tells us if "higher activity" in a small brain area is more efficient in producing consciousness than not so high activity in larger areas of the brain?
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: We are getting to the why border here... smething natural science never was able to ross.
[13:32] herman Bergson: THAT is a huge statement Lizzy.....
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: cross
[13:33] herman Bergson: Just think of the implications of your statement...!!!!
[13:33] herman Bergson: If everything is only pure physics....
[13:33] herman Bergson: there are the laws of nature....
[13:33] herman Bergson: we can predict the outcome of any chemical process....
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Jaelle, I am with you. I believe the different qualities of consciousness depend on other parts of the brain, with the sum total at 100%
[13:34] herman Bergson: This means if Lizzy is right all is determined in this universe....
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: but thats no solution
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: yes!
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the origin of the discussion on FREE WILL, Lizzy
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: of course consciousness must come from somewhere in our brains/into our brains
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: So what if it is? As long as we can't practically know, it will not affect our decision making
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but that doesn't say how it works
[13:35] herman Bergson: Your statement implies that free will does not exists
[13:36] herman Bergson: Makes me think of a lecture of John Searle on free will....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Quantum mechanics has shown that matter isnt deterministic in its processes at all at the lowest level
[13:37] herman Bergson: and he pointed at that fact to say that there is room for free will as there is room for randomness in the behavior of matter
[13:38] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: Randomness in the behavior? That's a random thought!
[13:38] herman Bergson: AmI too hard on you all?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what do you mean by free will?
[13:38] Farv Hallison smiles
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: free will is deciding to stay
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: or to go
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: the problem of free is its definition
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: With randomness at that level, we can develop and learn to make decisions depending on the situation.
[13:39] Jaelle Faerye: for instance
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no..i think it';s more than that
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: No, just my brain is consciously using it's free wwill to feel the pain of working this hard.
[13:39] herman Bergson: Free will means that based on your self awareness you make a decision which could not have been predicted based on your biochemical processes in your brain in advance
[13:40] Jaelle Faerye: yep
[13:40] Farv Hallison: In QM we can go to two different places at the same tikme
[13:40] herman Bergson: the decision is there just at the moment you make it
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: but is this free?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Let's stick to philosophy here, Farv... ㋡
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: may be its a mechanism of our brain to react more quickly
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Sybyle....that observation is one of the big discussions at the moment
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it remembers me, what is my program in difficult situations
[13:42] herman Bergson: Observations that certain brain areas already have made the decision before you are consciously aware of it that you made th edecision
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: I may be way off base here, but when we attempt to look at one theory of consciousness without looking at the whole self, are we not seeing just part of the picture?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well..I think I have tortured you enough for today ^_^
[13:43] Farv Hallison: Who made the decision if you are not aware of it?
[13:43] herman Bergson: The brain Farv....!
[13:43] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:43] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and who leads the brain?
[13:44] herman Bergson: That is the whole point in the debate on free will
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: we do... that does not mean we know all that it does
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: so freedom is only a freedom, my brain gives to me?
[13:44] Mistyowl Warrhol: Your unconscious self makes decisions for your conscious self.
[13:44] herman Bergson: the bio chemical process Beertje in interaction with its environment
[13:45] herman Bergson: That is too much psychology Misty....
[13:45] Sousinne Ceriano: bye all.
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Sousinne
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: tc sousinne
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: bye Sou
[13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): bye
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Sousinne
[13:45] herman Bergson: Time to finish our discussion.....
[13:46] herman Bergson: May I thank you all for enduring me this time again :-)
[13:46] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:46] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** =O= **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** =O= **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: well thank YOU
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you professor
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: that was again a very interesting session, Herman
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: it was a pleasure to endure this
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: Need time to digest this
[13:46] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes ,thank You!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all for participating
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!!!
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: sure Qwark
[13:47] Ageliki Mekanic: thank you
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..I'll make it a subject of a lecture..
[13:47] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: wow
[13:47] herman Bergson: Lizzy started it !!!!!
[13:47] Qwark Allen: very interesting subject for lecture
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: blushes*
[13:47] Jaelle Faerye looks at Lizzy
[13:47] Qwark Allen: kind related with this one
[13:47] herman Bergson: So we have to answer to it
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes indeed Qwark
[13:48] Qwark Allen: very complex this classes
[13:48] Qwark Allen: but i think we are getting there
[13:48] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:48] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it takes a long way
[13:48] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:49] herman Bergson: Indeed Qwark....I realize it was...
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: Well, give the brain a work out for sure LOL
[13:49] herman Bergson: it does Misty...
[13:50] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ㋡

372: The Brain and Consciousness, a temporary answer

2012-01-11T13:41:00.001+01:00

Today I 'll try to clarify once again to what conclusion I have come with regard to the classic "MIND - BODY" problem.

To begin with, there never has been a "problem". The problem was created by Descartes (1596 - 1650). In the 17th century natural science emerged as a new realm of human knowledge.

The method was derived from the Ancient Greek: formulate a theory, make observations and test your theory: a systematic set of logically related propositions that attempt to explain the phenomena of some domain.

It is that in the seventeenth century there was a very serious conflict between science and religion, and it seemed that science was a threat to religion. Like religion is attacked these days again. Just think of Richard Dawkins.

Descartes devices the solution: he argued that reality divides into two kinds, the mental and the physical, res cogitans and res extensa.

Descartes made a useful division of the territory: Religion had the territory of the soul, and science could have material reality.

This shaped our vocabulary about the metal and the physical, which was of course heavily extended by the rise of psychology. Everything became mental or physical.

A good example of opposition this view: do you realize that for decades psycho-somatic diseases didn't exist. Psychiatric patients were put in cages, as if it were malfunctioning machines, good for a laugh.

It is in our time, actually these past few decades, that we have accepted the unity of being: that there is not such a thing as a mind and another thing called the body.

Yes, there is a causal relation between the mind and the body, to be more specific between the brain and the mind, defined as consciousness.

Ontology is the philosophical branch which asks the question: what does exist. Thus, our question is "Does consciousness really exist?" Or is our mental vocabulary just another way of talking about matter.

John Searle says: consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon just like digestion is, but it has some specific features in which it differs from other biological processes. We'll get to that later.

Let me try to explain the ontological status of consciousness. Consciousness is generated by the brain. No brain no consciousness.

Important here is to have a good understanding of causality. The general idea is that A causes B, where A and B are two independent events, which in a way also could exist independent of each other. After cause A, B could go on on its own.

That however, is not the case with consciousness, nor with other phenomena in physics. There exists also a kind of causality of mutual dependence.

And here we have difficulty to grasp the meaning of the statement that consciousness exists. Let me give you again the example of the causal relation between h2o molecules and liquidity.

We all accept that liquidity exists. Ok, as a property of water and there is the catch: WHAT is the ontological status of "liquidity", of such a property? Matter exists, molecules exist, but in what sense does a property exist?

Descartes solved the problem easily. He just concluded that this property could be regarded as an independent non material matter.

And here comes the brainteaser. Liquidity is not identical with h2o molecules under certain circumstances, for when I pick out such a molecule it will be just a collection of atoms and not liquid. Neither can you find a braincell of which you can say that it is conscious.

There is a way of existence which totally depends on the configuration of matter, which can be a subject of scientific research without forcing us to postulate something more than matter. In other words…the mind is the brain….

The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you....
[13:21] herman Bergson: The floor is yours!!
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano cheers.
[13:22] Sybyle Perdide: sighs
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: so it's all because of politics, I knew it!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well druth....the dualism is
[13:22] Farv Hallison: the social construction of reality.
[13:23] herman Bergson: Dualism was Farv....
[13:23] druth Vlodovic: why is sybyle sighing?
[13:23] Mick Nerido: The brain is a organ that is an electro chemical computer...
[13:23] Netty Crystal is Offline
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: cause she have to get the clue..slowly
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: has*
[13:24] Mariella Diesel (mariella.deezul) is Offline
[13:24] herman Bergson: Welll Mick...say that it is electro -chemical ....and leave the computer part...:-)
[13:24] herman Bergson: A computer is not even a shadow of the capacities of the brain
[13:25] Mick Nerido: just for a functional comparison not the same
[13:25] herman Bergson: I know MIck.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: But you know....the mind - computer comparison is an issue in itself....
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: to me, the most convincing evidence of this is what happens to a brain and a mind after a stroke. You lose a brain area, you lose its function...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just look at the picture behind me Sousinne...
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is your story
[13:26] Loo Zeta: But the brain compensates and regenerates new pathways
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: Which says to me that if you were to lose your entire brain, say, at death... you would lose ALL function - i.e. oblivion
[13:27] Loo Zeta: we chuck computers out
[13:27] Mick Nerido: All our senses are feeding the brain information and the brain synthezises all to produce a "consciousness"
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: but not always completely
[13:27] Farv Hallison: then let the brain heal and redistribute its memories and the function comes back.
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: not always, Farv
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: Not really... areas are not interchangeable.
[13:28] Loo Zeta: Some memory function is lost forever
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: When you do get a partial refunctioning, it's not as it happens witout a cost
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes but some functions can move to other brain areas....it happens
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: sure
[13:29] Loo Zeta: reschematics
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: it happens in a limited way. A damaged brain stays damaged.
[13:29] herman Bergson: True Sousinne
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and a damaged mind?
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: but good question Beertje
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: (without but)
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: And a damaged mind.
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is not a good question, Beertje..lol
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: why not?
[13:31] herman Bergson: It is ambiguous...
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: We don't use 10% of our brain... we use exactly 100% of it, but not all the time.
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: one has to define what a damaged mind is
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: and
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: this is SL...
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye looks suspiciously around
[13:31] druth Vlodovic: lol
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: So every little area destroyed will respond to lost function.
[13:31] herman Bergson: because a damaged mind refers to a psychological state, not to a neurobiolocal state
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: but if the mind is the brain...
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: but isn't the idea that any psychological state has a corresponding neurological state?
[13:32] herman Bergson: I mean...my mind is damaged of course..I am crazy ..:-)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: It doesn't matter much, as you said, Sybyle
[13:32] herman Bergson: but my brian is ok....as is my consciousness :-)
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: i am not sure the mind is the brain, Sybyle
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Brain damage is mind damage
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: the mind is "part of", or "sits in" the brain, maybe?
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: you are to fats Sousinne
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: No
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: not necessarily
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...if you keep the terms in the neurobiological context Sousinne
[13:33] Loo Zeta: Frontal lobe?
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: I always do, Herman
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if "mind" is how you think then you have to include the effects of hormones
[13:34] herman Bergson: hold on....!!!!!
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: And where do hormones come from?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Something is going wrong here.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: All of a sudden we ar e using the term MIND....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman, have to go Bye
[13:35] Farv Hallison: bye Mick
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hormones come from glands that are directly or indirectly regulated from the Thalamus.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: bye Mick
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: and we didnt define it b4
[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that is a completely obsolete term....with no meaning at all or hundreds of meanings
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hmmm, hypothalamus. sorry.
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Sousinne...better place to be ^_^
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Which is definitely part of the brain.
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: "brain" is an organ while "mind" is a concept, yes?
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: too general i think
[[13:36] herman Bergson: Brain is an organ Druth and consciousness is its product
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: but not everything we do is conscious
[13:37] herman Bergson: Mind is a word form the history of philosophy...
[13:37] arabella Ella is Online
[13:37] herman Bergson: no use for that anymore
[13:37] herman Bergson: leads only to confusion....
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: we even make decisions without really engaging the consciousness
[13:37] herman Bergson: unless you say mind is synonymous with consciousness
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes we do Druth....
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Mind is consciousness.
[13:38] herman Bergson: with every step you take for instance
[13:38] Farv Hallison: I think the mind is where understanding occurs.
[13:38] druth Vlodovic: I was thinking of "mind" as being a more general term encompassing everything that causes thought or action
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so we need to find a definition of mind, before talking about
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: but we have supernatural phenomens that you cant explain this way
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Such as...?
[13:39] herman Bergson: To begin with Sybyle
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: transfer of thoughts
[13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Well, if you have evidence of telepathy, I am sure there are many who would listen.
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: its okay
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: i agree
[13:40] herman Bergson: And what Farv said I would reply....
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: if I am uncomfortably warm it will make me irritable, this will affect my thoughts, so my overheated body becomes part of my mind without being part of my brain
[13:40] Farv Hallison: but if you drop the mind, where does understanding happen?
[13:41] herman Bergson: you refer to cognitive functions which are inherent to consciousness
[13:41] herman Bergson: Understanding as a function of consciousness
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i feel a bit empty without a mind...
[13:42] herman Bergson: But you are a still a conscious person Beertje
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: i would feel empty without a soul
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: but that's another question
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye smiles
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: soul is very unscientific jaelle:_))
[13:42] herman Bergson: the word mind is so related to our dualist views of mind and body....
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I dropped the idea of a soul a while back, the emptiness fills in :)
[13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: Understanding happens in the very highest abstract thought centers.
[13:42] herman Bergson: you feel lost without a mind and happy without a body...
[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: if you can define soul, it becomes scientific, Lizzy
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: absolutely
[13:43] Sousinne Ceriano: You are always on my consciousness?
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: oh dear Beertje...
[13:44] Farv Hallison: Where do you make the descion to jump out of the way when you see a shadow that might be a tiger?
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: lol, I have to go or I'll feel empty inside without a pizza
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: the limbic system of the brain does that Farv...
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: bye druth
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: bye all
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: In some risk evaluation center. Also pretty high up.
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not evne a decision in a conscious sense
[13:44] Jaelle Faerye: ye Druth
[13:45] druth Vlodovic is Offline
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I have burned out half of my class now....looks good
[13:45] herman Bergson: time to end the discusion.....^_^
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye feels like a mindless survivor
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....great discussion again today....!
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Always been mindless here =)
[13:46] Loo Zeta: Thanks sorry missed beginning
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you, professor.
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: I am crazy..so I don't feel my mindlessness here ;)
[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: but.. well done, Herman..thanks a lot
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: haaa
[13:46] herman Bergson: and never mind....
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks Herman
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: ooh nice pun
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman! it was great again!
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can't sing that song anymore..but i can sing..toen onze mop een mopje was..lalallalalal
[13:47] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy...
[13:47] herman Bergson: lol
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: will we continue at that point next time?
[13:47] Farv Hallison: yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: Great class today!
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: great teacher ; )
[13:48] Loo Zeta: and i will direct RL son to your blogs, he is starting Philosophy degree in Wales soon
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:49] Qwark Allen: getting interesting everyday more
[13:49] herman Bergson: Oh...Might be a good help for him....
[13:49] herman Bergson: If he really reads through all my projects he really get s good insight in many topics
[13:50] herman Bergson: He may skip the discussions :-)
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano giggles.
[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all...have a goodnight
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: nite Beertje!
[13:51] herman Bergson: By eBeertje
[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:51] Jaelle Faerye: bye Beertje
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: ooh
[13:53] Qwark Allen: see you next class
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Qwark
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: i just discovered that you give the "class notes" on your blog!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: nice!
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman, good night!
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thnx for coming Lizzy :-)
[13:54] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks, Herman
[13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure Jaelle
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: good night Herman
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: I am glad my friends made me discover this class
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: :)
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: it was a pleasure
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: as always
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Sybyle

371: The Brain and a new approach

2012-01-10T20:41:00.002+01:00

Last lecture I introduced a new approach. After all, which we have discussed, I have come to the conclusion, that it would be better to drop my reductionist materialist view.

I adopt a new hypothesis, as formulated by John Searle: " Consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical.

It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels."

A biological process? You could argue, isn't that plain materialism? According to Searle the answer is "NO", but to understand that, we have to look closer at his arguments

Most important is that we stop using any of the traditional categories of "dualism," "monism," "materialism," and all the rest of it.

Frankly, I think, says Searle, those categories are obsolete. But if we accept those categories at face value, then we get the following picture:

You have a choice between dualism and materialism.

According to dualism, consciousness and other mental phenomena exist in a different ontological realm altogether from the ordinary physical world of physics, chemistry, and biology.

According to materialism consciousness as I have described it does not exist. That is, asa biological phenomenon.

Just recall what I said in my previous lecture out the attempt to reduce the statements of one theory to a set of more basic statements, which could imply that the first kind of statements even become obsolete.

Like theories based on alchemy or witchcraft have been discarded completely, because we now talk in terms of chemistry and medicine.

Neither dualism nor materialism as traditionally construed, allows us to get an answer to our question about consciousness.

Dualism says that there are two kinds of phenomena in the world, the mental and the physical; materialism says that there is only one, the material.

Dualism ends up with an impossible bifurcation of reality into two separate categories and thus makes it impossible to explain the relation between the mental and the physical.

But materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

In short, dualism makes the problem insoluble; materialism denies the existence of any phenomenon to study, and hence of any problem.

The heart of my new approach is "the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness. "

In essence it leads to the question, if this is not about an independent not physical substance, nor is is reducible to pure matter, then how do we have to understand this?

We know enough about how the world works to know that consciousness is a biological phenomenon caused by brain processes and realized in the structure of the brain.

It is irreducible not because it is ineffable or mysterious, but because it has a first person ontology, and therefore cannot be reduced to phenomena with a third person ontology.

What I mean by this last statement I'll explain to you in my next lecture

The Discussion

[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you Lizzy :-)
[13:24] Qwark Allen is Offline
[13:24] Mick Nerido: By first person you mean what I am experiencing cannot be reproduced?
[13:25] herman Bergson: Something like that , yes, Mick....but it is a bit longer story
[13:26] herman Bergson: But before ending up in the next lecture....
[13:26] herman Bergson: science describes the world in third person form.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: that molecule behaves so and so....third person
[13:27] herman Bergson: my private conscious states however, I can only describe by saying....I feel, I believe I experience and so on...
[13:27] herman Bergson: I can't describe them by saying herman Bergson is experiencing this or that....when I talk about myself
[13:28] herman Bergson: But we'll get to that in detail in the next lecture
[13:28] Mick Nerido: ok
[13:29] herman Bergson: most interesting in my new approach is that I have to drop materialism in its most absolute form...
[13:29] herman Bergson: There is something in this word ..ontologically which we can't name....
[13:30] herman Bergson: let me explain....
[13:30] herman Bergson: micro-level.....macro-level
[13:30] herman Bergson: water....
[13:30] herman Bergson: at the micro-level it is a bunch of h2o molecules...only that
[13:31] herman Bergson: in a certain state water is liquid....
[13:31] herman Bergson: so there is liquidity....
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is caused by the h2o molecules....
[13:31] herman Bergson: can't exist without them...
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes at the macro level liquidity is something real..ontologically
[13:32] haglet Alter is Online
[13:32] herman Bergson: that is according to Searle also the relation between the matter of th ebrain and consciousness
[13:33] herman Bergson: liquidity is a feature of h2o molecules....
[13:33] herman Bergson: there not a single liquid h2o molecule….
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: poking Mick and waking him up!
[13:34] Mick Nerido: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: but combined in a certain state those molecules cause this property which we call liquidity
[13:34] herman Bergson: so...
[13:34] Mick Nerido: So conciousness is chemistry?
[13:35] herman Bergson: I hope you get a picture more or less? :-))
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: so discussing water, we forget on components in the water.. say river water vs tap water?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Mick it is
[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): does not matter
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, kicking chemistry into a closet for now :-)
[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): needs to mull this over a while
[13:36] herman Bergson: apart from h2o molecules there can be a lot of other molecules in the water....
[13:36] herman Bergson: but that is irrelevant
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): question did you really toss out your basic philosophy herman ? or just adjust the the termanology?
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: ok clearing out the unnecessary data and focusing on just H2O
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sp
[13:37] herman Bergson: Most important is that you understand that liquidity is a property of water that can only exist , and it does, when h2o molecules are in a certain state
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:38] herman Bergson: like consciousness is a feature of the brain when it is in a given state....
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): got it
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: and consciousness? is it effected by different states?
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sleep
[13:38] herman Bergson: sure....
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): coma
[13:38] herman Bergson: whe we are asleep we are not conscious....
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Gemma , things like come....locked-in syndrome...brrrr
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: but for this study, we are ignoring those and just focusing on the how consciousness fits into our world.. ?
[13:39] herman Bergson: We try to understand what consciousness it, Misty....
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: ok :-)
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: what about subconsciousness?
[13:40] herman Bergson: Like one pretty common way of understanding it is, that we have a body and a mind...
[13:40] herman Bergson: as if these were two independent entities
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some do not believe in Subconsciousness. one either is or is not aware.
[13:41] herman Bergson: subconsciousness is a term from psychology, Lizzy....
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: correction, some do not believe in it.
[13:41] herman Bergson: it has little meaning in the context of the philosophical analysis of consciousness
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: do you say it doesn't exist?
[13:42] herman Bergson: besides...subconsciousness is a term which has only meaning within the psych analytical context
[13:42] Mick Nerido: I have to go thank s
[13:42] herman Bergson: A completely different story is the question....do we always act, based on conscious decisions?
[13:43] herman Bergson: and that is obviously not the case....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: intuition
[13:44] herman Bergson: psychotic behavior….
[13:45] herman Bergson: neuroses..
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye: those are pathological though
[13:45] herman Bergson: a person who is not aware that he washes his hands every 5 minutes for instance
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes they are the extremes Jaelle
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: uh huh
[13:46] herman Bergson: but look at yourself.....
[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe once someone said to you...do you know that you always……….
[13:46] herman Bergson: habits
[13:47] herman Bergson: Like Hume said...Custom is the great guide of life....
[13:47] Jaelle Faerye: habits, like sports moves, are the body repeating (or the mind) movements they have learnt
[13:47] herman Bergson: doing things all the time about which you do not have to think...:-)
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: once acquired, those movements, or habits, are more comfortable
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Jaelle....
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: easier
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: so it is a learning process somehow
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: i think
[13:48] herman Bergson: an din that case consciousness as we understand it is not involved…
[13:48] Rodney Handrick is Online
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: no, because the body has learnt to go past it
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: is able to spare it
[13:49] herman Bergson: inthe beginning of the learning process we had to be conscious of every move.....
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: so you can use your consciousness
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: the brain has....
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: adapted
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: to the task
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: new neuron paths
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: once established, doesn't take a lot of thinking
[13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: but is the consciousness you use, mental or physical?
[13:50] herman Bergson: just look at a young child.....
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: the mind is available for something else
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: how conscious it has to be of every move....when he learns to walk
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: depends what is the task you're setting yourself to
[[13:51] Jaelle Faerye: people who work a lot with their brain, use it in constructed ways, paths too
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: and it might be easy for them to write a state of the art article on, say, neurosurgery, but difficult to learn a new language
[13:52] herman Bergson: Looks at his watch....
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: but i might be disgressing here :)
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: Hi Rod, you are late
[13:52] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hi Rodney :-)
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: Hello Rodney
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i have to go in a few minuts
[13:52] herman Bergson: lol no!...Rodney...
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: Hi everyone...happy new year
[13:52] herman Bergson: He always comes in on the right moment.....
[13:53] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation again....
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:53] herman Bergson: see you next class
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: Thank YOU
[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:53] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman
[13:53] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney..happy 2012
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for now
[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: still rezzing
[13:54] herman Bergson: And give Qwark my regards and best wishes for his health
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: thanks a lot, that was quite instructive :)
[13:55] herman Bergson: thank you Jaelle...
[13:55] herman Bergson: feel free to attend any lecture you like
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: Good evening, all :)
[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: TC everybody
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: thanks :)

370: The Brain and a new point of view

2012-01-05T16:28:00.001+01:00

Nice to see you all again. I hope you enjoyed your holidays as much as I did. For those who missed my message , of course , 2012 for you a lot of health and lots of love.

At least the coming months of this new year will be pretty difficult for us, because we have reached the final stage of our quest into the mystery of the brain.

The brain has been the topic of last year in RL. Lots of publications about the brain and how it works. During our quest we too have seen that many mental phenomena can be explained by the functioning and properties of the brain.

I started our quest with my thesis formulated in 1977, which was, to put it simple, that mental terms and physical terms refer to the same thing.

For example, to say "I am angry" and "There is adrenaline in my blood" may have a different meaning, but when asked to what state of affairs do both statements refer, we should give the answer: to a specific biochemical state of my body.

Taken one step further you could conclude that when those mental terms refer to the same states of affairs as the physical terms, then why not dispose of these often vague mental terms.

Like you could suggest to dispose of the word "water''. Delete it from our language, because talking about H2O is way more accurate.

This way of thinking is called reductionism, reducing one set of statements to a more fundamental set of statements, even suggesting to eliminate the first set.

Like we have reduced complete theories of witchcraft and alchemy to more basic chemical and medical theories. We even don't take witchcraft and alchemy serious anymore.

It all may sounds so obvious, that our language refers only to the material world and that with the growth of our scientific knowledge we can unmask pseudo-language that claims to refer to more than just material states of affairs.

But now comes the difficult part. John Searle (1932 - …)says: "Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.

Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity."

Thus , a reductionist view won't do the job according to Searle. Yet his thesis is that "consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon.It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."

And he adds" We are blinded to the natural, biological character of consciousness and other mental phenomena by our philosophical tradition, which makes "mental" and "physical" into two mutually exclusive categories.

The way out is to reject both dualism and materialism, and accept that consciousness is both a qualitative, subjective "mental" phenomenon, and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world."

So that will be my new position: putting to the test that consciousness is a qualitative mental phenomenon and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world. And in this context, according to Searle , we can reject materialism.

Again Searle: " Consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical.

It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels. To accept this "biological naturalism," as I like to call it, we first have to abandon the traditional categories."

So, according to Searle, I have to abandon my materialist reductionist approach of the mind - body problem and accept that his view is more plausible.

Then this will be our new approach tot the Mystery of the Brain.

The Discussion

[2012/01/03 13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you... ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:20] Farv Hallison: It sounds like wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.
[2012/01/03 13:20] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ..:-))
[2012/01/03 13:21] Farv Hallison: two complementary decriptions...sometimes wave, other times particle.
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Well dont know what that is, but at some stage Searle points at quantum mechanics indeed in relation to the subject of free wil
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Ahh yes...
[2012/01/03 13:22] herman Bergson: As you may have understood...I am going to make John Searle a kind of central focus
[2012/01/03 13:23] herman Bergson: He is a brilliant philosopher of mind excelling in clarity and good arguments
[2012/01/03 13:23] Mick Nerido: could it be simply that as a brain grows more evolved consciousness is a inevitable step in its functioning?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: There you already imply the possibility of growth of consciousness Mick....that already is an issue...
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: is a child less conscious than we are?
[2012/01/03 13:25] Farv Hallison: what does 'inevitable' mean in this context?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: If so ..how do you measure that
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: typo for inevitable.... cant escape it
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mick Nerido: when I have cafeine I am more conscious :))
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: consciousness is awareness.. a child has limited awareness of all around it. So is a child less conscious or just less experienced in understanding what it sees or hears?
[2012/01/03 13:27] Lizzy Pleides: can we say a part is heredity and another part is experience?
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: that is easily said Mick, but we even haven't a clear definition of consciousness....
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: You may feel more alert yes....
[2012/01/03 13:28] herman Bergson: but you were conscious of your mental state before and after the coffee
[2012/01/03 13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol I am only conscious after at least 2 cups of coffee !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:29] Farv Hallison: It has survival value. we become aware of when someone is going to be mean to us and cut them off before they can do it.
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: what did change only that what you were conscious of
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: yes Farv , what happens is that some senses become more accurate and focused
[2012/01/03 13:30] Farv Hallison: we could change our reactions by becoming aware
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: How does one define "consciousness"
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mick Nerido: Consciousness is linked to awareness of past present and future...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: of course....but what we are talking about is th econtent of our conscious experience and its effects on the organism
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: not about consciousness itself and what it is
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: and believe me...at this moment I have no clue what it is...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: I know where it resided in the brain
[2012/01/03 13:32] herman Bergson: that is....when certain areas of the brain show no activitiy at all anymore then the person is not conscious
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But so far that is all we know....
[2012/01/03 13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: If areas of the brain are no longer conscious are they then dead?
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But what the brain then generates what we call consciousness and how it relates to the brain....we'll have to find out
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: You better write that dow Bergie!
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mick Nerido: she is writing everything down lol
[2012/01/03 13:34] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i wrote everything :-) herr professor
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: Good.....
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: Waiting to see if she needs to sharpen her pencil soon.
[2012/01/03 13:35] herman Bergson: Well...if there are no more questions, then..may invite you to follow me in my quest in 2012
[2012/01/03 13:35] Farv Hallison wonders if bergfrau wrote down how Mistyowl's hair smells.
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel takes the invitation
[2012/01/03 13:36] neret Emor: thanks so much herman
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must think too with writing - mulititaskgenie
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: Looking forward to more conscious raising awareness of the universe!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[2012/01/03 13:36] herman Bergson: I really dont know where we will end....
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: I just washed it !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor!
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and ty class :-) i must go outside with m dogs
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see you soon:-) philosophers
[2012/01/03 13:37] CONNIE Eichel: was nice, as always :)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: A lot to think about :-)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Farv Hallison: Thank you Professor Bergson.
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********

369: The Brain and The Mystery of Consciousness

2011-12-27T13:15:00.002+01:00

According to John Searle in his book "The Mystery of Consciousness" (1997), it seems that the greatest single philosophical obstacle to getting a satisfactory account of consciousness is

our continued acceptance of a set of obsolete categories, and an accompanying set of presuppositions that we have inherited from our religious and philosophical tradition.

We start off with the mistaken assumption that the notions of "mental" and "physical," of "dualism" and "monism," of "materialism" and "idealism" are clear and respectable notions as they stand,and that the issues have to be posed and resolved in these traditional terms.

We also suppose that the notion of scientific reduction - by which complex phenomena can be explained by, and in some cases eliminated in favor of, the basic mechanisms that make them work - is clear and presents few difficulties.

We then notice that consciousness, our ordinary states of sentience and awareness when we are awake, as well as our states of dreaming when we are asleep, seem very peculiar when we compare them with such "physical" phenomena as molecules or mountains.

Compared to mountains and molecules, consciousness seems "mysterious," "ethereal," even "mystical."

Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.

Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity.

Many philosophers believe that if you grant real existence to consciousness you will be forced to some version of "dualism,"

the view that there are two metaphysically different kinds of phenomena in the universe, the mental and the physical.

Indeed for many authors, the very definition of dualism implies that if you accept, in addition to such "physical" phenomena as mountains, "mental" phenomena such as pains, you are a dualist.

But dualism as traditionally conceived seems a hopeless theory because, having made a strict distinction between the mental and the physical, it cannot then make the relation of the two intelligible.

It seems that to accept dualism is to give up the entire scientific worldview that we have spent nearly four centuries to attain. So, what are we to do?

So far John Searle, who thus outlines the program, that lays ahead of us.

There still are philosophers, who accept dualism as the real solution of the problem of consciousness. One great name here is David J. Chalmers.

But in contemporary philosophy the most common move is to insist that materialism must be right and that we must eliminate consciousness by reducing it to something else.

Favorite candidates for the phenomena to which consciousness must be reduced are brain states described in purely "physical" terms and computer programs.

Searle takes an interesting position in relation to the pragmatic and deliberate choice I made for materialism and possibly a kind of reductionism.

A good example of this reductionism is the discussion about free will. Some neuroscientists deny the existence of free will, because certain brain states are ahead of our consciousness of these states.

Before I am conscious of wanting to move my arm, there has taken place already certain brain activity, which indicates motor action.

Ok, let me assume Searle's view as leading principle for the last stage of our quest:

"consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon. It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."

And to conclude this lecture and this year,I have granted myself with a nice Christmas holiday, which means that my next lecture will be Tuesday, January 3, 2012. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:22] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yay!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you all..... ㋡
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Mistyowl Warrhol: A conscious act? :-)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: it sure have been an interesting year
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] neret Emor: thanks for the lecture, herman
[13:23] herman Bergson: my pleasure neret
[13:23] Farv Hallison: I don't do photosynthesis myself
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any questions left...
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:23] herman Bergson: the floor is yours
[13:23] Mick Nerido: Nice summation
[13:23] Clerisse Beeswing: wow end of year already
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you fot all the wonderful lessons this year Herman
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): jan 3 nice
[13:24] Clerisse Beeswing: you have been so great professor and everyone else too
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we have a lot to think about during christmas holiday
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: been really nice this
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh this is always an interesting class
[13:24] herman Bergson: blushes a little...
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for years now
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehehe
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ideed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: very nice
[13:25] herman Bergson: We reached the 5th year of our lectures and crossed the border of 300 too
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: and got a good insight in everything
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: ohhh my gosh
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I think i have been to about 270??
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): more or less
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: our brains might explode from some much thinking
[13:25] Mistyowl Warrhol: Nice, wish I hadn't missed the others.. but looking forward to future ones :-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: at least Gemma!
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: hreman has been at all of them
[13:25] neret Emor: same here, mistyowl
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i just say i know that the more classes the more questions come up and allso the same ones all the time
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): over and over
[13:26] herman Bergson: that is a good thing Gemma....
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the more we learn the less we understand
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: Isnt that the purpose, not to teach what we know, but to lead us to learn more?
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): end of next year you have even more questions gemma:)
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and the farther we get from graduating
[13:26] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that Gemma....
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahaa
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think you begin to see more and more nuances...
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is true
[13:26] Clerisse Beeswing: lol nope I will never graduate from learning
[13:27] neret Emor: me neither xD
[13:27] DOMINATRIX Babii: life is one long lesson
[13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): nor me:)
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the backbone of our class is behind us on the wall
[13:27] Clerisse Beeswing: very true dominatrix
[13:27] neret Emor: the lesson finish just in the grave
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we always go back to them
[13:27] herman Bergson: it may cause a feeling of knowing less and less...but in fact you see much more...
[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: true herman
[13:27] neret Emor: very true
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and the more you see the more new questions come up
[13:28] herman Bergson: It shows you that you can't settle such questions with funny one-liners
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but in general you know more and more
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but that in turn raises new questions and so on
[13:28] herman Bergson: Oh I feel lost now and then myself....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: guess that is how it it
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: is
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: the more you know the more you doubt
[13:29] herman Bergson: looking at all the literature I have....
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: if the number of question grows proportional to what we see more, its hard to see anything
[13:29] herman Bergson: I would look at it that way, Sybyle....
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we will see Sybylle..herman will leed us..
[13:29] neret Emor: but is the same along humanity history, we leanr and make lot of mistakes and its like each answer take u to the new question
[13:29] Farv Hallison: All the trees obscure my view of the forrest.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Just take my appoach of this philosophical problem....
[13:30] neret Emor: and curiousity makes us very special
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry:-( but i have to much lag today. happy holidays Class! :-)))
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): speaking of trees again
[13:30] herman Bergson: of course I have no clear cut answers...
[13:30] Mick Nerido: Thanks time for me to go
[13:30] DOMINATRIX Babii: and some people never learn from the mistakes in history :)
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok bergie
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): you too
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: One has to know enough to be able to ask questions, the more they learn the more and deeper the questions.
[13:30] herman Bergson: but I make a pragmatic decision....
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): /merry
[13:30] neret Emor: very true :D
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: **** YODEL **** HOLLA REI DULI JÖ *** YODEL ***
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: and then I put my view to the test
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ⁂•:._.:•⁂MERRY CHRISTMAS⁂•:._.:•⁂
[13:30] Clerisse Beeswing: Best of holidays to all
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i have to go..have a merry Christmas or Saturnalia:)))
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: same to you ㋡
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:31] neret Emor: merry christmas gemma
[13:31] herman Bergson: Not to get my view confirmed....but to get my view tested
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): beertje
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: cu beertje
[13:31] DOMINATRIX Babii: have a lovely holiday everybody:)
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: May we keep learning into the next and next new year
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: as you do, Beertje
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: same to you Beertje
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we will
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: ·Bye Bertje
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye bye
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: Thanks professor
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: looking forward to it
[13:31] neret Emor: mery crhistmas beertje
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...Qwark isnt online. I guess I have a merry crowd here now....
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hugs beertje
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: I have to go too
[13:31] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Beertje :-) hugs
[13:32] herman Bergson: So....I all wish you the happiest holidays...!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bye then Notro
[13:32] neret Emor: marry xmas as well, nitro :)
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman
[13:32] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman ㋡
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard smiles
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard: thank you
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i hope we will see you dancing over the holidays one day
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: have a good christmas and new year Herman
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and cu after that next year
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:32] herman Bergson: Have yourself a merry little Xmas and a happy New Year ^_^
[13:32] DOMINATRIX Babii: see you in 2012 :)
[13:32] neret Emor: see u soon bejiita
[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): if i cannot make the 3rd will be there on the 5th
[13:33] Nitro Fireguard: Happy christmas to all the philosophers
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:33] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation!
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: thanks for take us with you, Herman
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok bye then
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
[13:34] neret Emor: bye bejiita
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: and my outfit is Beertje's christmas one from her store :-)
[13:34] DOMINATRIX Babii: bye bejiita:)
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:34] Farv Hallison: good bye all you lovely philosophers.
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Farv
[13:34] neret Emor: bye farv, have a nice xmas
[13:35] herman Bergson: Bye Farv..have a good time!
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: If I dont see anyone before.. TC, be safe and healthy, have a happy holiday season.. and warm New Year.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: good holidays to you, Herman
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: and we will meet again in 2012
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: yes have wonderful holidays Herman and all others
[13:36] herman Bergson: Will be an interesting 2012 Sybyle...
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I am sure
[13:36] neret Emor: see u the next class
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: enjoy your holidays
[13:36] herman Bergson: ok neret :-)

368: The Brain and Consciousness

2011-12-13T18:53:00.001+01:00

Today we have reached a milestone in our quest of the Mystery of the brain. After dozens of attempts to formulate a theory of the mind, from dualism to connectionism, we have reached the point of no return.

CONSCIOUSNESS….

"This era is at once the most exciting and the most frustrating for the study of consciousness in my intellectual lifetime:

exciting because consciousness has again become respectable, indeed almost central, as a subject of investigation in philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, and even neuroscience;

frustrating because the whole subject is still plagued with mistakes and errors I thought had been long exposed.", says John Searle (1932 - …) in the Preface of "The Mystery of consciousness (1997).

As a pragmatic choice I started our quest with the assumption that the mind and consciousness are a product of the brain.

Neuroscience has proven that a number of mysterious experiences, like experiencing the presence of an invisible entity or person near to you,

or voices in our head, or flashes of revelations, or the appearance of the holy Virgin, or out-of-body and near - death experiences are all tricks that the brain plays on us.

For consciousness we need at least three crucial parts of the brain: the cortex, the thalamus and the white matter, in which are embedded all neural connections between cortex and thalamus.

The thalamus (from Greek θάλαμος = room, chamber) is a midline paired symmetrical structure within the brains of vertebrates, including humans.

It is situated between the cerebral cortex and midbrain, both in terms of location and neurological connections. Its function includes relaying sensation, spatial sense, and motor signals to the cerebral cortex, along with the regulation of consciousness, sleep, and alertness.

Any damage to one of these parts affects the state of consciousness of a person.

A stroke that damages the right brain, for instance, can make the person loose consciousness of the left side of his body or left spacial consciousness.

When you approach such a person from the left he doesn't notice you at all, from the right he does. Such a person eats only the food on the right half of his plate. Turn it 180 degrees and he can eat the left half.

Coma is another source of information on how to understand the relation between brain and consciousness.

The brainstem controls all functions which are vital to survive, respiration, heartbeat, body temperature and so on. As its name suggests, it is positioned below the cortex.

When the cortex gets damaged, we may loose consciousness, but the brainstem continues to perform its duties. Consequently we stay alive, but unconscious.

Of course there are many more medical examples, but my main point here is, that brain and consciousness are inextricably linked

and that the final stage of our quest is to learn to understand how a bunch of general purpose molecules in a certain configuration can give birth to the mind and consciousness.

The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:18] herman Bergson: To answer Farv....
[13:18] herman Bergson: subconsciousness is a psychological term
[13:19] herman Bergson: while consciousness as meant here is a neurological or biological term
[13:19] Teleo Aeon: what is it to be considered (conscious) of something ?
[13:19] herman Bergson: in that sense subconsciousness and consciousness here are hardly related to each other
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: there is no location for subconsciousness?
[13:20] herman Bergson: there is no location for subconscious nor consciousness.
[13:21] herman Bergson: To be conscious of something....
[13:21] herman Bergson: there are two things in the organism....
[13:21] herman Bergson: a consciousness of the environment with which it interacts and an awareness of the self
[13:21] Teleo Aeon: so this is a proposed consciousness, which is the kind of being counscious of being aware ?
[13:22] Teleo Aeon: or just a mechanism of consciousness
[13:22] Teleo Aeon: or for
[13:22] herman Bergson: not sure what you mean Teleo... ㋡
[13:24] Teleo Aeon: well one could argue that being conscious of being aware, might be different in humans, in the sense that we are actually constantly thinking about outcomes and causes and effect... but we are aware of that AND aware of being aware
[13:24] herman Bergson: I see.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: On the one hand we have self awareness....
[13:25] Teleo Aeon: what the actual biological mechanism underlying that is.. is maybe a search in a different respect, to consciousness
[13:25] herman Bergson: and yes you can play the game of being awere that you are aware of that you are aware of that you are a wre...
[13:25] herman Bergson: ad infinitum....
[13:26] Mick Nerido: We are conscious beings means that matter has that potential...
[13:26] herman Bergson: on the other hand....consciousness is just one word....but it refers to a number of mental states...not to just one state....
[13:26] Teleo Aeon: yeah.. which is I guess, the primary reason that often makes me wonder if it is anything actual at all.. as a phenomena.. or we just end up thinking we are sure, it must be. :)
[13:26] herman Bergson: in future lectures we'll look into the analysis of the concept of consciousness
[13:27] Teleo Aeon: sounds interesting :)
[13:27] Mick Nerido: It's a state of mind?
[13:27] herman Bergson: I mean ..consciousness....itis about our memories....
[13:27] Farv Hallison: one way of being aware is to have a bunch of sentence fragments we can sort through to figure out what to say... Is there anything else?
[13:28] herman Bergson: but also about our awareness of our ideas, our desires, drives....and so on
[13:28] herman Bergson: So there is a lot to tell about the concept itself already
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: is it alllow is it allowed to say that brain works with facts and consciousness with feelings, ... and both interact
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: ?
[13:29] herman Bergson: if you want a straight answer LIzzy.....
[13:29] Mick Nerido: I think of it like a 3 way bulb the brightest setting is consciousness the lower settings unconscious thought
[13:29] herman Bergson: I would not allow such a manner of speaking
[13:29] herman Bergson: because you make the brian an agent and consciousness two....as if we are split in two...
[13:29] herman Bergson: that cant be correct
[13:29] herman Bergson: Besides that....
[13:30] herman Bergson: the brain causes, generates, is the origin of th emind and consciousness
[13:30] herman Bergson: the brain is the material thing....actually just molecules....
[13:31] herman Bergson: How can that generate what we experience as consciousness....that is the big question
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: so consciousness is a special function of the brian beside the working with facts, and supervising this?
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: in a special way
[13:31] Teleo Aeon: the more I think about it.. the more I buy into the emergent propertys, position
[13:32] herman Bergson: that is a better way of stating it it Sybyle, but in stead of brain I would use the word mind
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: okay
[13:32] herman Bergson: in fact...the word brain only refers to that grey matter that is in your skull
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: got it
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:33] herman Bergson: as such it isn't an acting entity...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: oh it continues
[13:33] herman Bergson: however, as I said before....that brain generates our consciousness....that is the mystery
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but we start the next big arc within it
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: ups
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: sorry
[13:36] Teleo Aeon: they must mean, the point where an organism becomes aware I guess ? or is it limited to humans as being the only species ascribed with consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...today we have opened the final chapter of the philosophy of mind....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Oh no Teloe......
[13:36] herman Bergson: a number of animals have some kind of self awareness
[13:37] herman Bergson: Dolphins, elephants, chimps...they all showed to recognize themselves in a mirror....
[13:37] herman Bergson: even a bird…don't know the english name did so
[13:37] DOMINATRIX Babii: is consciousness not programmed into our mind by what we observe and learn as we grow up?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): rico
[13:38] Farv Hallison: What is the evidence that anyone else or any other animal is conscious?
[13:38] herman Bergson: consciousness and self awareness is not s specific human ability
[13:38] Teleo Aeon: nods.. well in an important sense, I ascribe most creatures to be conscious in a central and important sense... but I think humans are a special case... so there are other problems with that then
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes indeed Teleo....
[13:38] herman Bergson: there is a difference in degree of consciousness
[13:39] Teleo Aeon: thats why I tend to often prefer awareness I suppose.
[13:39] Teleo Aeon: as a differentiator between what I'd call consciously human
[13:40] herman Bergson: I don't think you can uphold that 100%
[13:40] herman Bergson: Indeed an insect reacts to it environment....
[13:40] Farv Hallison: WE have visual and language images, even smell.
[13:40] herman Bergson: so you could assume a kind of consciousness there....
[13:40] DOMINATRIX Babii: all animals have those senses
[13:40] herman Bergson: but that is far away from our level.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but self awareness is a special feature of us....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but as of some animals....not all, far from that
[13:41] herman Bergson: but some animals are self aware....
[13:41] herman Bergson: so we are not unique in that sense
[13:41] Farv Hallison: we have the ability to deside whether to react to a sense datum.
[13:41] DOMINATRIX Babii: when animals preen...is that not a form of self awareness?
[13:42] herman Bergson: preen?
[13:42] Teleo Aeon: good point DOM
[13:42] herman Bergson: don't know the word...I am sorry ㋡
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: its may be too much mechanical
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: clean themselves
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Farv…we do not necessarily behave according instincs
[13:43] Teleo Aeon: well maybe that points to self awareness as a more instictual level than one would normally consider.. perfectly possible I gues
[13:43] Teleo Aeon: DOM
[13:43] DOMINATRIX Babii: yes
[13:43] Farv Hallison: preen is like when a girl fluffs her hair so you notive her.
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ahh..I see....
[13:44] herman Bergson: among humans it can be a culturally determined behavior
[13:44] herman Bergson: for animals it is just instinct
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: so the difference is, that we can decide if we do so?
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: it seems to be dependent of brain structure, an amoeba surely hasn't a consciousness
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: and react against all rules?
[13:45] herman Bergson: They do it to survive.....not to look pretty ㋡
[13:45] Teleo Aeon: the advertising agencies might argue with you about that herm. :)
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: we do look pretty to survive too
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: after darwin
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: or better according to
[13:46] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:46] DOMINATRIX Babii: a peacock raises its tail to attract a female...
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: yess
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we cán survive ugly...
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thats why we can decide how to act#
[13:46] druth Vlodovic: not if we want kids
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes....ugly men exist and have a wife
[13:46] DOMINATRIX Babii: lol
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes...true
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): if they have money...
[13:46] Mick Nerido: Seeing your reflection in a mirror is conciousnes
[13:47] Teleo Aeon: and I've seen the other way round too
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: but maybe they are intelligent
[13:47] Teleo Aeon: it's just the media doesn't seem to like to show those pictures :p
[13:47] herman Bergson: true Teleo
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: beatuy means not automatically attractivity
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: and vice versa
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: but if they preen doesn't that imply that they can imagine how they look to another creature?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well...I notice that you are conscious of a lot of things ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: This means that we have a lot to discuss in coming lectures:)
[13:48] Teleo Aeon: you should see these amaizing constructed gardens the Bird of PAradise makes for it's mating ritual... pretty outstanding
[13:48] herman Bergson: Thank you all for you participation....
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we never stop to discuss here:)
[13:48] Teleo Aeon: thanks herm
[13:48] herman Bergson: I know the solution Beertje
[13:49] herman Bergson: CLASS DISMISSED ㋡
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: great Herman.. you led us well
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant Herman, Thank you!
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): smiles..
[13:49] DOMINATRIX Babii: thank you herman :)
[[13:49] herman Bergson: Druth , are you there?
[13:50] Farv Hallison: Thank you professor Bergson
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: somewhere :)
[13:50] herman Bergson: I see a clould behind Beertje even without a name tag
[13:50] Farv Hallison: hello druth
[13:50] herman Bergson: Must be you Druth
[13:51] Farv Hallison: you look like a cloud druth.
[13:51] Lizzy Pleides: can a cloud have consciousness?
[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you can see Druth now?
[13:51] herman Bergson: no...
[13:51] druth Vlodovic: ah, I didn't realize I was so well hidden, old computer
[13:51] Farv Hallison paid you L$100.
[13:51] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Farv Hallison donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i can only see here head
[13:52] Farv Hallison: You still look pretty, druth.
[13:52] Teleo Aeon: thanks :)
[13:52] CONNIE Eichel: great class, i was a bit lost in IMs :)
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: that's al I brought, saves bandwidth
[13:52] CONNIE Eichel paid you L$50.
[13:52] Guestboook van tipjar stand: CONNIE Eichel donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:52] DOMINATRIX Babii: it was wonderful...thank you so much :)
[13:52] herman Bergson: My pleasure Domi
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: great class, as always :)
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was great
[13:53] herman Bergson: thank you CONNIE ㋡
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: time to go... till next time, kisses :)
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry about your floor..
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: bye Connie
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye CONNIE
[13:53] Farv Hallison: kiddrd CONNIOE
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye :)
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Good byee Herman
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: bye conny
[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy
[13:54] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman, FArv
[13:54] druth Vlodovic: bye herman, thank you
[13:54] Sybyle Perdide: druth
[13:54] herman Bergson: You have your name tag now druth
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: I see it
[13:55] herman Bergson: try Ctr + Alt + R
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: I'm off to a pseudo-buddhist thing now, I don't know if you are interested in such things
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: you're welcome to come if you are
[13:56] herman Bergson: I was there once with you...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: what did you think?
[13:57] herman Bergson: the meditation place
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: related
[13:57] herman Bergson: not really ㋡
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: ok :)
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: I hope I can make it on time next time
[13:58] druth Vlodovic: see you then
[13:58] herman Bergson: take care druth

367: The Connectionist Brain

2011-12-09T10:35:00.001+01:00

A last look at the mind as a computer. In the previous lecture we discussed the Computational Theory of Mind, the theory also known as computationalism.

The basic idea is, of course, that a computer apparently seems to operate exactly like the brain and thence the computationalists focused on the reasoning capability of the mind.

Allow me to oversimplify, for this can become very technical otherwise. The computationalists saw the mind as using a kind of language of thought with its own rules and syntax.

However, there were others who had a closer look at the brain itself. What they saw was not some logic machine, but networks of neurons and synapses. Whole networks of them.

In the picure behind me you see a schematic representation of a neural network. As I said , I simplify, but you could read it as such. When you look at all the lines you may understand why this theory is called connectionism.

You get a multitude of input, this is evaluated in that 'hidden layer' and leads to an output. Example: the sonar of a submarine tries to identify mines underwater.

The sonar receives a sound (Is if from a rock or a mine?), a spectrum of frequencies. All the nodes in the hidden layer have learnt what frequency what mean and all hidden layer nodes inform the output nodes about their findings.

And when you take all these output data together you get the answer: "Sorry guys, that is a rock." Such a neural network doesn't know that by itself. You tell it, these are the frequencies, you receive when it is a mine, That has to be your output.

It gets an sonar input to practice with. It knows to what output it should lead and then it starts adjusting the settings in the hidden layer in such a way that it finally obtains the desired output.

It may sound like a simple process but it isn't. To "teach" a neural network (I mean a computer), it can needs hundreds of thousands of trails for learning a simple task. It learns by trail and error.

Is that similar to the mind? We sometimes only need a few trails to learn new things. Young children seem to master new words every two hours, where a neural network needs millions of trails.

Advocats of connectionism often emphasize that digital computers are poor at perceptual recognition but amazingly good at mathematical tasks and data crunching.

In other words,whilst connectionist networks are good at what we are good at and bad at what we are bad at, digital computers are bad at what we are good at and good at what we are bad at!

This is taken as evidence for connectionism and against the computational theory of mind . A nice try, but there are still so many problems left, that I think, that computers are just simplistic representations of some of our functions of the mind.

Take for instance rationality, logic. For example, there is a causal relationship between my thought (mental state) that Mr. X is dumb and my thought that someone is dumb.

The first thought caused the second, and there is a rational relationship between'Mr. X is dumb' and 'Someone is dumb'. Matter of simple logic.

Take this argument, for example: If Joann dyes her hair, John will laugh. Joann dyed her hair, therefore John laughed. A valid reasoning.

Now this one; If Joann dyes her hair, John will laugh. Joann did not dye her hair. John did not laugh. Hold on, not true, John did laugh. Oh sorry. Yes because Joann suggested to dye her hair. Therefore an invalid reasoning.

We need not much training to understand this simple logic. An experiment by Bechtel and Abrahamsen in 1991showed that a neural network could discover the difference between a valid and invalid reasoning.

However, we need to proceed with caution. To begin with, the neural network needed over half a million training trials to obtain an accuracy of only 76 percent.

Even with a further two million training trials the network was still only 84 percent accurate. This is hardly a triumphant result.

My conclusion? Despite all exciting futuristic science fiction computers from HAL to Data, never expect to find a mind in your computer, as the machine is defined as it is now.

The Discussion

[13:31] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!
[13:31] herman Bergson: The floor is yours..
[[13:32] herman Bergson: I guess you all have to reset? ㋡
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL, resetting process starting.
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: maybe overloaded
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: yes it was a lot of information
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: reebooting my saiyan drives
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but i think i got the most
[13:33] herman Bergson: take your time to reread it...
[13:34] herman Bergson: we'll wait a few minutes
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: seems fairly logical, that even after so many tries it cant get better results
[13:34] Mick Nerido: I have to go rescue a bird
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Bye
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: may I ask..
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: the computer just program itself and then fiollows this new instructions but still don't understand what its actually doing
[13:34] herman Bergson: ok Mick
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: like we do
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: So we have the best computers already.. and the best brains?
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: both can improve i guess
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we have the best computers till now...they are going to be better and better..
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: you told us, a digital system is not good enough for a
[13:35] herman Bergson: Our brains are better than computers....or better..our mind is
[13:36] herman Bergson: There was the believe to create artificial intelligence...
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: the trails
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes cause we understand what we are doing, computers are much faster but they cant understand at all what they do and thus "training " a computer is very hard
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: cause as i said it cant understand at all what it actually does
[13:37] herman Bergson: and to some extend it was achieved...but not in the way our mind works, but how computers work
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: Maybe what I mean is ...our brains and computers are basic.. It is how we learn to use them in the future that will be improved.
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why do we want a computer that works like our brain?
[13:37] herman Bergson: and what these AI computers do LOOKs like how our mind works...
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: the computer is a tool i think
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: good question Beertje
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: but only in limited areas
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok Beertje...
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think our goal should be a melding of brain and computer.. When our brains can effect a computer directly.. and get feed back from the computer.
[13:38] herman Bergson: What we want is to understand the mind....
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes..but why do we want a computer that works like our brain?
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what is the use of that?
[13:39] herman Bergson: when we can recreate in a computer what a mind does....it leads to some understanding
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: Not like a computer, but with a computer.
[13:40] herman Bergson: well...to take it into absurdum....
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: Example, computer for stroke patients. in which the eye looks at the screen and makes changes.
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: a yes and you blink to click
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: i've seen a such one
[13:40] herman Bergson: if we create a computer that can take over all our htinking....we could go on vacation....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: haha but how fun would that be after a while
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: We would not need a keyboard, just our brain to operate one.
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:41] herman Bergson: in a way that is the basic idea behind those movies
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aaa
[13:41] herman Bergson: cyborgs...
[13:41] herman Bergson: the ones with Schwarzengegger...
[13:41] herman Bergson: ah
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: but remember how hard it is to even make a computer operate on speech
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Naww, I want one to work along side my brain..
[13:41] herman Bergson: Terminator
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i don't want such a computer..i'd rather think for myself
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: i saw they did it successfully in 84 even
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje..that is the battle in Terminator...
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: our mind is not rational all the time, so a computer who had a mind, would be so too?
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: but still i cant get my machine to understand much of what i say with different programs
[13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): never seen the Terminator
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: and now its 2011
[13:42] herman Bergson: Good point Sybyle....
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: and if so, a computer is a logical working machine.. so it would get into trouble with itself
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: and would never be able to be like us
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is the quintessential point of my doubts about all beliefs in Artificial intelligence
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: well, then it is like our brains.. our brains get into trouble all the time.
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, mine does anyway.
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: some people don't have that, lol
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:44] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see how cognitive scinece canmodel parts of our mind into computer models..
[13:44] herman Bergson: but it is only a small part of the mind
[13:44] Mistyowl Warrhol: But think of a computer, that could work with a brain, helping paraplegics to walk again.. People with brain damage to relearn..
[13:45] herman Bergson: what about desires, expectations, feelings, emotions, needs, despair?
[13:45] herman Bergson: In fact...Artificial intelligence already gives us a clue...
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: oh goddess, I have enough despair for my own
[13:45] herman Bergson: computers are related to intelligent behavior..
[13:46] herman Bergson: and indeed...computers can display intelligent behavior
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: a computer can be made to act as if it feels when given an input but still it stritly then only follows dumb instructions exactly how it should respond
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: only what we have told it
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and it cant understand or feel them
[13:46] herman Bergson: no...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our next station is the phenomenon of consciousness....
[13:47] herman Bergson: a mental state not a ingle computer has achieved except in Science fiction movies
[13:48] herman Bergson: That is the hard part for all theories of mind....
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): the hard part is yet to come..?
[13:48] herman Bergson: oh yes Beertje....
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: yes, staying conscious :-)
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): omg..
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:49] herman Bergson: Mick is trying to save a bird while he looks like a dead bird himself :-)
[13:49] herman Bergson: We have seen all attempts to formulate a thery of mind now
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: Mick is unconscious on here so he can be consious in RL
[13:50] herman Bergson: from dualism to connectionism...
[13:50] herman Bergson: and all can't explain consciousness...
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first person experience we have of our selves
[13:51] herman Bergson: That will be our final chapter of this project
[13:52] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is: Are we our brain?
[13:52] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: and if we are not, ... what are we?
[13:52] herman Bergson: or is the mind something more than just the working of the brain
[13:53] Qwark Allen: i think we answer that question weeks ago
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy...indeed
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or is the mind physical or something else. The brain being a vessel.
[13:53] herman Bergson: In what way Qwark?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: that our mind is our brain
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): wb Mick
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes..but in what way...
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is the bird saved?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: when the brain is damaged, there is no mind
[13:54] herman Bergson: true...
[13:54] Qwark Allen: look at alzheimer patients
[13:54] Mick Nerido: No some people scared it away
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is that really true?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: they die completely oblivious to what is around them
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes ..all true Qwark
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: alzheimer, No. they still have a personality
[13:54] Qwark Allen: they even don`t know how to eat
[13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: The data is there, just the brain can not reach it to process it.
[13:55] Qwark Allen: in the last stages, they lost all capacities
[13:55] Qwark Allen: all
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but they still have a mind
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Can we teach the rest of the brain to take over control for damaged parts..
[13:55] Qwark Allen: the moments of lucid are so rare, that at a point there are no more lucid ones
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: That is possible in small children.
[13:55] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...
[13:56] Qwark Allen: to see that , we are our brain, we got to see, the ones with damaged brain
[13:56] herman Bergson: and the only cause is the breakdown of the brain...
[13:56] herman Bergson: they even can point at the proteins that cause it..or the lack of those
[13:56] Qwark Allen: in alzheimer, the neurons are substituted by aluminum plates
[13:57] Qwark Allen: heehhe in a joke, we can say, in the end we can recycle them
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: when there is an interaction between the brain and another structure and the brain don't work anymore
[13:57] herman Bergson: And Beertje said..they still have a mind....
[13:57] herman Bergson: and that is true too
[13:58] Qwark Allen: i have to go, was really nice lecture herman, one more step to realize what are we, and where are we going
[13:58] Mistyowl Warrhol: Just need to find a way to get around the block.
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes ㋡
[13:58] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...
[13:58] Lizzy Pleides: TC Qwark
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: bye Qwark
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: really great once again
[13:58] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC Qwark.. Tell Gemma hi and give her a hug plz
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:58] Qwark Allen: i think in the end, we`ll be half human, half computer
[13:58] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:58] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: hahah ok
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ok hun
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: cyborgs
[13:59] herman Bergson: Resistance is futile..........
[13:59] Qwark Allen: something like that
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ahahahh lol
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hehe was just thinking about the BORG
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: you will be assimilated, resistance is futile!
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: I just want to see through the universe..
[13:59] herman Bergson: We all belong in the hyve..
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:00] herman Bergson: But there is one problem....
[14:00] herman Bergson: philosophically...
[14:00] herman Bergson: also with the BORG...
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: but the borg seems to be more machines then intelligent beings
[14:00] herman Bergson: They had that Queen..she had a MIND of her own????!!!!!!!
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: NO comment !!!!
[14:00] herman Bergson: so why was HER mind different from the borg mind???
[14:01] herman Bergson: How could that be?
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and 7 of 9 too
[14:01] herman Bergson: She had a mind filled with desires and goals
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: She was a woman.. and her mind was more complex for them to grasp..
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ah
[14:01] herman Bergson: no...7 of 9 was just released from the bog and regained her human mind
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: aa yes she readapted to her usual self
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: thats how it was
[14:02] herman Bergson: yes ..
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: all borg implants was removed sort of
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: so she became human again
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: human
[14:02] herman Bergson: The philosophical problem is the Queen of the Borg Hyve...
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cause in the beginning she wasn't cooperative at all
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: aaa the collective mind
[14:03] herman Bergson: She was as human as every individual human mind
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: and the queen like the master cpu with the borg as slave machines or clients
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: all thinking like a grid
[14:04] herman Bergson: no Bejiita..that queen had a will of her own...and the hyve just had to follow her will
[14:04] Bejiita Imako: yes she has but the rest are like one big mind taking instructions from her
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: She took in input and reprocessed it out.
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: its a bit like the LHC grid at cern, takes instructions from an operator
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: then use millions of computers to act like one big supercomputer
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: a collective mind
[14:05] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, bit my tongue long enough.. The rest were just not wired the same.
[14:06] herman Bergson: Again Bejiita.....the philosophical problem in the Borg issue is that that Queen had an individual mind....where did it come from ..where was it going to?
[14:06] Bejiita Imako: aa indeed
[14:06] herman Bergson: ok...
[14:07] herman Bergson: Resistance is futile..next class is nextThursday.
[14:07] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:07] herman Bergson: and Thank you all :-)
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: this is awesome
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: thx herman
[14:07] Sybyle Perdide: it was really great, Herman
[14:07] Mistyowl Warrhol: Very good class. much to think about.. Ty human, Herman
[14:07] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[14:07] herman Bergson: thank you Sybyle ㋡
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: o time for Qs party
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: co soon all
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: hugs
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: cu
[14:08] herman Bergson: have fun Bejiita
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: i will
[14:08] Mistyowl Warrhol: yes, just got my tp, but need to do something first.
[14:08] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman
[14:08] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[14:08] Mick Nerido: I will read this later
[14:08] herman Bergson: did you save the bird Mick?
[14:09] Mick Nerido: It go away
[14:09] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:09] Mick Nerido: Maybe tomorrow it will come back
[14:10] herman Bergson: Bye Misty...

366: The Brain and Artificial Intelligence

2011-12-09T10:32:00.002+01:00

Like science is eager to discover the secret of life, so are the supporters of the Computational Theory of Mind eager to find artificial intelligence in their computer.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science that aims to create it.
AI textbooks define the field as "the study and design of intelligent agents" where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success.

John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956, defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines."

John Searle coined the difference between STRONG AI and WEAK AI. Weak AI is the kind of behavior of computers, as if they seem intelligent. Well, maybe you can say, that they behave intelligent…matter of definition, I would say.

Maybe you have tried to chat with Elbot or Eliza. They can give you the impression of being understanding and intelligent. However they aren't. They just shuffle symbols not understanding a single word you type.

Yet this weak artificial intelligence is used nowadays in many situation. It emulates, what our mind does. You even find it in modern cars with its sensors.

But from the 1950s on higher hopes were put on the development of strong artificial intelligence, From then on it was always "Just wait. The next generation of computers will me even more powerful. They will do the job!"

However, we still haven't reach that stage. Just a sidetrack, a thought….. when we succeed in making a mind appear in a computer, does that mean we are forbidden to ever turn it off again? Wouldn't turning it of be murder, the killing of an individual mind?

Well, don't worry, the Chinese Room argument, which I discussed in the previous lecture has shown the weak spot of strong artificial intelligence.

Computer programs are formal, meaning using only syntactical rules to manipulate data, symbols. Our mind, however, has content. Words are not just symbols to the mind. We ascribe meaning to these symbols .

Thus we have to conclude, that computer programs are not sufficient for nor identical with minds.

Strong AI researchers have attempted to program digital computers to understand simple stories. Well known research of that kind dates back to 1977.

For example, the computer might be expected to understand a simple story about eating in a restaurant. The computer is given three kinds of input:
1.The story.

2. Some general information about restaurants and the kinds of things that typically occur there. For example: people eat in restaurants; people order their food from waiters; people are usually required to pay for what they have ordered; and so on.Researchers in strong AI call this information a 'script'.

3. Some questions about the story.
lf the scientists have managed to program the computer properly then, according to strong AI,the computer will not merely answer the questions correctly, it will literally understand the story.

However, even when I would become a super expert in answering questions in Chinese by shuffling symbols according to syntactical rules, I never will understand the questions.

When we get the questions in English we are aware what the questions mean, while I am not aware of the meaning of the chinese symbols I handle.

And here we hit the most difficult issue of our long quest. We must conclude that the Chinese Room setup (shuffling symbols according rules) is insufficient for conscious awareness of the meaning of the questions.

Or stated in a more general way: computation is insufficient for consciousness. There is more to the mind than you can emulate with computer programs.

The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:25] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:25] herman Bergson: If you have any questions...you have the floor
[13:25] Carmela Sandalwood: Seems to me you leave out an important aspect of consciousness: it is part of an environment
[13:25] Qwark Allen: at least with the technology of today
[13:26] herman Bergson: that is what they always say Qwark.. ㋡
[13:26] Mick Nerido: Is it theoretically possible for computer brains to be concious?
[13:26] herman Bergson: What do you mean by 'part of an environment, Camela?
[13:26] Qwark Allen: computers are around at few decades
[13:26] Carmela Sandalwood: The Chinese room is not reacting to an environment: it is only suffling symbols
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): one question would we be able to turn it off?? i say no because it would not let us if it becomes conscious
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes another way to see it
[13:27] herman Bergson: It is reacting on the questions that come in...that is an environment
[13:27] Qwark Allen: and they will achieve our rate of of processing information in 25 years
[13:27] Carmela Sandalwood: so, suppose I say 'is there a flower in the garden?'...simply shuffling symbols can't answer that even if there is an algorithm
[13:27] Qwark Allen: lets see by then, what will be the question by then
[13:27] Carmela Sandalwood: there has to be sensory input
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: for us to understand what the computer puts out you must convert it to analog signals first
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and that the computer can never understand it can justtunderstand 1 and 0
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and 1 and 0 is as meaningless to us as the analog is to a computer
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: that's way too simplistic Bejiita
[13:28] herman Bergson: Wait....
[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i do not think artificial intelligence will ever take over but it may come close!
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: neurons only 'understand' on and off
[13:28] herman Bergson: One issue at a time....
[13:28] herman Bergson: Furst Qwark....
[13:29] Qwark Allen: in the next decades we`ll have quantic computers, that have 1, 0 and also -1
[13:29] herman Bergson: even in 25 years the computer will not have changed Qwark...it is a syntactical machine....
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hmm the question is how does our brain store information and do the brain have some sort of A7D D7A converter to put meaning to everything
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: or do we interpret it directly?
[13:29] herman Bergson: when there is a machine that generates consciousness it will not be called a computer....
[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that makes sense
[13:30] Qwark Allen: when they decoded the language brain use for comunicate between neurons, and it`s not that diferent
[13:30] herman Bergson: Then the sensory input question of Camela...
[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: well, we might call it a robot or artificial intelligence...or Robert
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: But isn't the brain a computer? It processes data.
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: compuetr means calculator and thats what a computer does, averything is just binary math to a computer
[13:30] Qwark Allen: its between charged positively, or negatively
[13:30] Qwark Allen: like 0 and 1
[13:30] herman Bergson: I don't think that it makes much difference to the Chinese room argument...
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ☆*¨¨*<♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''*<♥:*¨¨*☆
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but with emotion and feeling
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: but we don't use mathematical formulas to listen to music
[13:30] herman Bergson: We just built a room with cameras and microphones and so on....
[13:30] Qwark Allen: in a way, when computers have the -1 in their language, maybe they will be ahead of us
[13:31] herman Bergson: the basic principle stays the same....
[13:31] Qwark Allen: cause they will have a state that we cannot have
[13:31] Carmela Sandalwood: Suppose your syntactical rules require that you look outside at times and based on what you see, there rules are different
[13:31] Qwark Allen: the minus one
[13:31] Mick Nerido: We are carbon based computers are sillicon based
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes like we have computer programs that can recognize faces
[13:31] Carmela Sandalwood: I don't see what happens in our brain as much different than what happens in a computer
[13:31] herman Bergson: The basic issue here is.....there is output form the computer...
[13:32] Qwark Allen: i think we are having a narcisist approach
[13:32] Qwark Allen: like we are the only ones
[13:32] herman Bergson: but this output does not imply that the computer has any understanding of what it is doing..
[13:32] Qwark Allen: but, i believe AI will come
[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: 'understanding' is about reacting appropriately to an environment so that you maximize the chances of survival or meeting other goals
[13:32] Qwark Allen: with some capacities of us
[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: how do you know I have understanding? how do I know you do?
[13:32] herman Bergson: whether it is recognizing faces, checking spelling, doing calculations...
[13:32] Qwark Allen: movies like blade runner will be like a vision of the future
[13:32] herman Bergson: it is all the same to it
[13:33] CONNIE Eichel whispers: thanks gemma :)
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark....we love such fantasies
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes its just calculating binary math
[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: and it is all the same to our neurons
[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: you say, the difference is in understanding?
[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: meaning doesn't exist at the neural level (or at the level of transistors)
[13:33] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that Carmela...
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and also as i said before a cpu can only understand some basic instructions, the compiler have to build the machine co with just these basic commands or the computer wont understand it
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: the x 86 instruction set
[13:34] herman Bergson: slow down Bejiita!! pla
[13:34] herman Bergson: plz
[13:34] Carmela Sandalwood: and a neuron only react to certain stimuli
[13:34] Carmela Sandalwood: so?
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: One difference between brain and computer, we calculate by also using emotional reactions learned over time.. using our 5 senses (6 according to some) Can we teach computers to use emotions?
[13:34] herman Bergson: there is one thing we still haven't discussed...and that is consciousness....
[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: and those emotions are calculated by the brain to react
[13:35] herman Bergson: The awareness of our existence...
[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: there are algorithms there also
[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: awareness is an internal representation: data
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well that is one of those issues Misty...
[13:36] herman Bergson: What does that mean Carmela?
[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: our self-awareness is simply an internal collection of data representing our internal state...it isn't perfect, but it exists and is ultimately binary in character
[13:36] herman Bergson: A second point is the fist person awareness...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Here we have a problem Carmela....
[13:37] herman Bergson: for there are no two mental states of self awareness alike in two different persons...
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:37] Qwark Allen: Hey! HAO
[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: of course not...the systems are different
[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: so?
[13:37] herman Bergson: What it is like to be me...is a special mental stat for me....
[13:38] herman Bergson: nobody in the whole world has that....
[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not so sure that the mental state of 'being you' will be forever limited to you
[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: it may be possible to transfer that data in the future
[13:38] herman Bergson: so my mental state of "what it is like to be me?" has a special property no other mental state in the world has
[13:38] herman Bergson: except my own of course....
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:39] Carmela Sandalwood: the question is whether the data can be transfered and used by the recipient
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that horse is hungry
[13:39] herman Bergson: We have to answer the question how to understand this first person property
[[13:40] herman Bergson: well....we almost have seen all attempts to understand the mind....
[13:40] herman Bergson: soon we'll get to the issue of what makes the mind: consciousness
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, if we each have our own thoughts, unique to us, where is that stored. If it is in tissue, does any of that transfer in situations of organ donations?
[13:41] herman Bergson: My conclusion of today is that I wouldn't bet on consciousness in machines
[13:41] Carmela Sandalwood: it might if you transferred brains, but not likely otherwise
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is a fascinating question Misty....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: machines work way too different from us
[13:42] herman Bergson: Because the greek thought that the mind was in the heart....
[13:42] Hao Zaytsev: hehe
[13:42] herman Bergson: the Egyptians also didn't have a high esteem of the brain...they threw it away when mummifying a pharaoh…
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: There are some cases in which ppl have seem to remember small data from someone that donated.. But that is a topic for another time :-)
[13:42] Carmela Sandalwood: so they were wrong...it happens
[13:43] Mick Nerido: There have be recent mouse brain experiments that shows memories could be transferred
[13:43] herman Bergson: Aristotle thought that the brain was an organ to cool the blood
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: Aristotle was also wrong about physics
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some think the brain is something to play with :-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: We have the believe that the mind is (in) the brain....
[13:43] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:43] herman Bergson: In a way...as if the body doesn't play a part in it at all
[13:44] Carmela Sandalwood: yes, that is also simplistic Herman....the body is required for the sensory input at least
[13:44] herman Bergson: Some people believe that donor organs also contain something of the donating person....not just tissue
[13:45] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i do'nt
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Frankinstein
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: in a practical sense its true
[13:45] Carmela Sandalwood: I'd have to see the data...but that also doesn't make it non-mechanical
[13:45] Carmela Sandalwood: more specifically chemical
[13:45] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we will never really agree on this :-)
[13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think the biggest difference between brain and computers.. the brain is being bathe by chemicals from around the body which in turn effects how the brain responds. Whereas, the computer.. just uses data that was inputed, even though it can reassemble that data by design.
[13:46] herman Bergson: That isn't necessary Gemma....
[13:46] herman Bergson: as long as we keep thinking about it and questioning it..
[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:46] Hao Zaytsev: aliens
[13:46] Carmela Sandalwood: MistyOwl: that may be, but even that can be represented by appropriate computing internals
[13:46] herman Bergson: Nice gus Hao.. ㋡
[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman it is time to put the christmas trees in the yard there
[13:47] Hao Zaytsev: hehe
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and snow
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ah yes
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: really strange no snow here yet
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: and 7 deg warm outside now
[13:47] herman Bergson: Oh my ...so true Gemma.....
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 3 weeks till christmas
[13:47] herman Bergson: SO thank you all again for your interest and participation today
[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:47] herman Bergson: I have to dismiss the class
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: really interesting
[13:47] Hao Zaytsev: why is a horse on the floor?
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): no clue
[13:48] herman Bergson: Have to put up my Xmas tree to keep Gemma happy
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): trees
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Qwark Allen: .-)))
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman..it was great
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: Carmela, the chemical of the body are altered by changes in our enviroment and our emotional response to that. Cant we reproduce that mechically?
[13:48] Hao Zaytsev: damn
[13:48] Hao Zaytsev: nice trip
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: tis was really great and interesting
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): fir biw
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it was very interesting Herman, thank you
[13:48] CONNIE Eichel: bye gemma
[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: Yes, among other ways, but changing the electrical or magnetic environment
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: well must head back now but cu soon again
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:49] Hao Zaytsev: im excited
[13:49] Qwark Allen: was very good as usual
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:49] Carmela Sandalwood: and that could even be in a feedback loop controlled by the CPU
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: well, bye bye all, great class professor :)
[13:49] Carmela Sandalwood: TY Herman
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel winks
[13:49] herman Bergson whispers: thank you CONNIE
[13:50] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: Very interesting and fun. I have really enjoyed this and meeting everyone :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: Nice, Misty ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: I do this now for more than 5 years
[13:50] Carmela Sandalwood: It is *very* interesting...thank you for doing it
[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: while I may disagree, it is fun to think about it all
[13:51] herman Bergson: It would be a very dull class when everyone agreed with everyone
[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: quite true
[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: I think the problem is ultimately what 'understand' means...do we actually have anything but an operational definition?
[13:52] herman Bergson: The main goal of philosophy is not to get the right answers...
[13:52] herman Bergson: as you give an example Carmela...philosophy is about asking the right questions
[13:53] Carmela Sandalwood: *smiles*
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or asking wrong questions, to get a different view?
[13:53] Carmela Sandalwood: and exploring the possible answers
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: :-)
[13:53] herman Bergson: right...
[13:54] herman Bergson: When you take the Chinese Room argument for instance....
[13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, I did try to be good and not overload everyone circuits LOL
[13:54] Carmela Sandalwood: it seems that often philosophy is about figuring out what the 'correct' definitions actually are
[13:54] herman Bergson: Look it up in the Internet Encyclopedia of pHilosophy....
[13:55] herman Bergson: Searle himself mentioned a number of more than 200 counter arguments to it..
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yet I think it is a pretty convincing argument that shows that computers can not be identical with our brain...
[13:56] herman Bergson: No semantics , no awareness, no consciousness....
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: and I think it misses some crucial aspects of both how computers work and how understanding happens
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: but semantics can be syntactical
[13:56] herman Bergson: Despite all science fiction computer minds
[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: in an environment
[13:57] herman Bergson: no Carmela....
[13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: But it is a fun idea to think about.. Computers gaining knowledge on their own.
[13:57] Carmela Sandalwood: My guess is that AI will happen when we program robots to change internal states appropriately
[13:57] herman Bergson: No computer will ever "know" the truth value of any complex symbol
[13:57] Carmela Sandalwood: why not? and why do we?
[13:58] herman Bergson: That is the big question indeed
[13:58] herman Bergson: Let's postpone the answer to further lectures ㋡
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: oh
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: the suspense was growing
[13:59] Carmela Sandalwood: *smiles*...sounds good
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: and now that cliffhanger
[13:59] herman Bergson: Then I have time to set up my Chrismas tree and snow here ^_^
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: laughs
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: thats an argument
[13:59] Carmela Sandalwood: hopefully my schedule will be nice and I'll be able to attend
[13:59] herman Bergson: You are always welcome Carmela ㋡
[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: as long as RL complies ;)
[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: thank you for the discussion
[14:00] Sybyle Perdide: I wish you a nice evening
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Yes, the other part of the equation. RL !!!
[14:00] Sybyle Perdide: see you on tuesday :)
[14:00] herman Bergson: My pleasure Carmela ㋡

365: The Mind is a computer

2011-12-04T21:32:00.002+01:00

Many people who work in the cognitive science and in the philosophy of mind think that the most exciting idea of the past generation, indeed of the past two thousand years, is that the mind is a computer program.

Specifically, the idea is that the mind is to the brain as a computer program is to the computer hardware. John Searle has baptized this view as "Strong Artificial Intelligence".

John Searle, born in 1932 and still alive and active, is noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy and teached at Berkeley in 1959.

In the previous lecture we learnt that a computer is a symbol manipulating machine and in the real computers of today, the machine uses only the symbols "1" and "0".

When a computer has to solve a problem, it uses an algorithm. An algorithm is a systematic procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

This all is controlled by a set of rules. For example you can have the rule "If condition C , then do A", which could be in real "If complex symbol "1111" occurs, replace it by "0000".

Now suppose we put a computer with a specific program on subject X in an room and an expert on the subject X in another room.

Then we let experts outside the room type in questions on a console. Both, the computer and the man in the room, can answer the questions.

This test, named the Turing Test, claims, that if the experts, who ask the questions, cannot distinguish the behavior of the computer from that of a human, then the computer has the same cognitive abilities as a human.

It would mean that the computer is as good as the human expert on subject X. Or in other words, the computer does the same as the mind of the human expert, understanding the questions and answering them correctly.

This is odd. A computer is a symbol manipulation device according to a given set of rules. Whatever the symbols means, doesn't matter. If you use the proper algorithm you get the solution of any problem.

Is that how our mind works? Is it indeed like a computer program a symbol manipulating system? This question has raised a battle in the philosophy of mind due to the famous Chinese Room argument as formulated by John Searle.

It is like this: you sit in a room with a bunch of boxes in which you find cards with Chinese characters on them. You have no understanding of Chinese at all.

But you have a book with rules, telling you things like "when you receive symbol X and Y, then return as an answer symbol P from box 2"

Outside the room there are chinese speaking people who send you their questions. You use your book of rules and return the appropriate symbols, which show to be the correct answers.

It means, that you passed in principle the famous Turing test, but you would not thereby understand a single word of Chinese.

If you don't understand Chinese by using a book of rules and manipulating symbols, neither does any digital computer using its algorithm.

However, when asked a question in English, you do not get a set of complex symbols, nor do you look up a number of rules to manipulate them.

When I ask you whether the earth is flat or a sphere, you can give an answer, because the words 'earth', "flat' and "sphere' have a meaning. And your answer is based on empirical facts.

And that is what a computer never can achieve, adding meaning to the symbols it manipulates and in some respects that is one of its powers, to be absolutely mindless.

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you ㋡
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: as alway
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: s
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Farv Hallison: Thank you, herman.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Conclusion....computers never can have a mind
[13:24] agnos: Thanks
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ed thats how it is, everyone who have written a computer program can see that
[13:24] Farv Hallison: But both stories sidestep the issue of defining what the mind is.
[13:24] herman Bergson: no Farv...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: simple things like playing music requires the computer to for each sequence of the song do a complex series of instructions every time and loop millions of times per second the same instruction over and over
[13:25] herman Bergson: A mind does more than a computer does...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: it can never learn it by itself
[13:25] Elle (ellenilli.lavendel) is Offline
[13:25] herman Bergson: a computer only shuffles symbols around according a bunch of rules
[13:25] herman Bergson: a mind ads meaning to symbol....a mind has content
[13:25] agnos: But we seemed to have developed into having a mind
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: its like if we would never learn the notes but always have a paper to look at
[13:25] Farv Hallison: The rule might generate new computer programs.
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol is Online
[13:26] Farv Hallison: a dictionary can add meaning to words.
[13:26] herman Bergson: maybe..but they do the same as all computer programs…shuffle symbols around without any understanding
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: yes indeed
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes..that is what we did with our mind
[13:27] herman Bergson: Just look how crude the translators work....even the best....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a computer cpu is just a bunch of millions of small sort of light switches that opens and closes in a specific way to the program code
[13:27] Farv Hallison: well, a computer could have a dictionary of meanings and even make new entries
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: because the cpu is designed in hardware so that a specific sequence of 1 and 0 will cause those switches to flip
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: its nothing more than that
[13:28] herman Bergson:a computer can have a database, Farv..but We have to fill it
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: may I play advocata diaboli?
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the compiler that translate the c or basic code must have knowledge about the basic construction of the cpu
[13:28] herman Bergson: sure Sybyle
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: thats how you program in assembler
[13:29] CONNIE Eichel: ^^
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the problem of the computer is, that the rules are only on a single dimension
[13:29] herman Bergson: hold on Bejiita....plz ㋡
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: then you must know registers address locations and everything about the basic hardware to communicate with the machine
[13:29] netty Keng is Offline
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the human pc has many layers of rules
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: smelling, looking, feeling and so on
[13:29] Farv Hallison: I like the smelling
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum is Online
[13:29] herman Bergson: Oh yes....I even left that feature our on purpose...
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: our brain influences sympaticus and parasympaticus, it influences if you feel well or not, how can a computer feel well?, can he feel anger fear or love?
[13:30] Farv Hallison: The computer could have a chemical lab that acts like a nose.
[13:30] herman Bergson: No Farv....
[13:30] herman Bergson: unfortunately not...
[13:31] herman Bergson: the chemical lab produces only data as in put which are just symbols for the computer
[13:31] herman Bergson: then it has its algorithm to analyze the data
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Netty Crystal is Online
[13:31] herman Bergson: you find such computers to analyze gasses for instance in many laboratories
[13:32] herman Bergson: But the machine has no understanding at all of the meaning of its output
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is our mind that adds the semantics to the charts and numbers
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and basically a computer have only a specific set of fixed instructions it can understand, the compiler in for example c must translate the c code to these basic commands and thats all the commands the cpu will ever understand untill a new model arrives with more instruction sets
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but we don't know either, why an how we react on chemical signs
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: tats why a computer can never at least not as they work now feel or sense
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: we just started to analyze it
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well the idea of a sensory computer with understanding of its sense experiences is a Science Fiction idea
[13:34] herman Bergson: Take Data form Startrek for instance...
[13:35] herman Bergson: The funny thing with him was that he could play Bach on a cello, but couldn't put feeling in it
[13:35] Farv Hallison: good point. I can't put feeling into it either.
[13:36] herman Bergson: So the scenario writers stayed close to the symbol shuffling of a computer
[13:36] herman Bergson: Data had a brother Farv.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Looks curiously at Farv
[13:36] Farv Hallison: oh?
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: star trek data?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes he had a brother
[13:36] herman Bergson: But that brother was the bad guy is one of the episodes
[13:36] Janette Shim is Offline
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: who was kind of evil programmed i think
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Could the brother play with feeling?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:37] herman Bergson: that is a good question Farv....for that brother really wanted evil....
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Can you be evil without having evil feelings?
[13:37] herman Bergson: which is an emotional choice
[13:38] herman Bergson: It is always fun to see how in SF they have to struggle with a computer with a mind...
[13:38] herman Bergson: especially when the thing gets its own feelings and ideas
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: and thats also a thing, can you make a computer program so that it for some unforeseen reason turn against you like in terminator
[13:39] herman Bergson: That is way beyond what a computer really is and will be in the future
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i don't think so cause then you must have deliberateley programmed it to kill you and who does that?
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: a computer only does what you tell it to
[13:40] Farv Hallison: well, the computer might control the power grid and give itself more power when it feel is it circuits slowing down.
[13:40] Joann Innovia (kimkiddy) is Offline
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: even if you can make a computer program take in data from outside and "learn" i dont' think that a machine that is made for good suddenly by external input could go berserk
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and kill you
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Farv...that is what it in SF movies always does....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but it only can do so when programmed that way....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:41] herman Bergson: Greatest fun is always when they in a movie never get the idea to simply pull the plug
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes, thats rule nr one
[13:42] herman Bergson: weird thing is then when you approach the plug and outlet the computer attacks you :-)
[13:42] Farv Hallison: 2001 pulled the plug.
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ALL machines no matter what it is should have an emergency stop or a mean to cut the power as soon it loose control
[13:42] herman Bergson: True Farv..indeed......he removes all those red objects one by one..
[13:43] Farv Hallison: but the computer might be running our life control system, so we can't shut it down.
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: but well i may bee hard to get to the plug of the opier machine if it chases you around the office meanwhile
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: copying
[13:43] herman Bergson: lol Good one FArv...
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): aardlekschakelaar:)
[13:43] herman Bergson: When we pull the plug here SL ceases to exist and we all are gone....:-((
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: yes :/
[13:44] herman Bergson: So, we are defenseless against our computers!!!!!
[13:44] Farv Hallison: yes, the police might pull the plug if we start to demonstrate.
[13:44] herman Bergson: We are all trapped inhere!!!!!
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:44] Farv Hallison: We are trapped in the Matrix/
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yeah..Let's OCCUPY SL !!!!!
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: well we still exist as code but the code need an active cpu to run so you can say we are like viruses in sl, a virus ( biological) needs a living host, its just a bunch of dna as our avatars just is code that need a powered on cpu and memory to operate on
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all for your participation again...
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU herman
[13:45] Farv Hallison: this has been great fun.
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:45] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Lizzy Pleides donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: a painful observation that we are trappe din here and cant pull the plug unless we want to kill ourselves...
[[13:46] Farv Hallison: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: I hope you all can live with that ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: but behind the avatar is still a real person who control it
[13:46] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: my avatar doesn't do anything my rl self don't tell it to
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: its operator
[13:46] herman Bergson: That real person might survive then Bejiita...
[
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: its an interesting thought for sure
[13:47] herman Bergson: Thank you all and dont be afraid of thinking computers..they dont exist
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: just machines
[13:47] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:47] Farv Hallison: I wont do anything my tail wouldn't do.
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and machines only do what you tell them, unless some dangerous bug is in the code
[13:48] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goed Gedaan Jochie!!
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and that bug is then telling the machine to do wring things
[13:48] Farv Hallison: All code has bugs
[13:48] Lizzy Pleides: clap clap clap...wohooooooo!
[13:48] CONNIE Eichel: great class, as always :)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: liked it a slot
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:48] herman Bergson: thank you ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: lot
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Bejita
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye, see you next class :)
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson whispers: Bye CONNIE
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Tc Connie
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Connie
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: ciao Connie
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye :)

364; The computational Mind

2011-11-24T16:01:00.001+01:00

Previous lecture I introduced you to the syntactic and semantic properties of symbols. Reason was, computers work with symbols, basic symbols and complex symbols.

In the sentence "Fido is the name of my dog" you could regard "Fido" as a basic symbol and the whole sentence as a complex symbol.

Syntactic properties are derived from the symbol itself. Properties like "It has 4 characters in a specific order", "it is black on white" and so on.

To understand what "Fido" means, a semantic property you need more than the symbol itself. At least you need me pointing at my dog saying "Look, that is Fido."

Why so much focus on this distinction between syntax and semantics? That is because some people see an analogy between brain and computer or visa versa.

Philosophers of mind who endorse the computational theory of mind, have come to the view that the mind is a computer and that thinking is symbol manipulation.

Now the question "What is a computer?" A computer is a 'syntactic engine', a device which organizes and manipulates symbols on the basis of their syntactic properties

Let me give you an example. When I use my word processor to write a story on my dog, I could use the 'Find' function and type 'Find Fido'.

What Fido is, is unknown to my computer, not even important for performing the 'find'. It is just a comparing of symbols on the syntactic level.

Yet a computer seems to respect semantic properties of complex symbols too. One semantic property is 'TRUE'. A complex symbol, a statement, has a truth-value.

Take this argument:
A. All avatars are made of pixels
B. herman is an avatar
Then the computer comes with the complex symbol:
C. herman is made of pixels

You would say…look, a computer also can handle semantical properties of complex symbolism because that conclusion, typed in by nobody but generated by the computer(program), is TRUE!

Thus a computer looks to be able to rational reasoning. It 'sees' causal relations between thoughts like A and B. However, this is not the case. We have to provide the semantics.

The computer has only a symbol manipulation rule which says: if A is marked TRUE and B is marked TRUE then you can mark C as TRUE, or a rule like if all A have property X and B is an A then B has property X.

WE have to give the computer the semantics by telling the program : A = TRUE, B = TRUE. Then it applies one of the syntax rules I just stated.

And that is what the computational theory of mind holds, that all our thinking is just like a computer does, syntactic.

Putting all this together we can say that, according to the computational theory of mind ,thoughts are complex symbols with syntactic and semantic properties.

Thinking, the manipulation of thoughts, is achieved by processors which, whilst sensitive only to the syntactic properties of the thoughts involved, nevertheless respect their semantic properties. In other words,thinking is computation.

Do you know Eliza or Elbot? Well, then read this short conversation with Elbot. You can talk for hours with him.

http://www.elbot.com/

H: You are a tin can Elbot
E: Was that a compliment or an insult?
H: Neither
E: Are you trying to make fun of my artificial intelligence?
If it was neither a compliment nor an insult, tell me
what it WAS!
H: It was an objective observation, Elbot
E: Keep making observations.
One of these days they might add up to something.
H: Yes, they add up to the observation that you are a tin
can.
E: The brilliant robot author Joseph Canrod said once:
The great enemy of perfection is thought.' Think about that!
H: Joseph Canrod did not say that.
E: I'm not sure I could explain that in language
that humans could understand.
H: I can read, Elbot
E: That's nothing new! Even I once read bar codes.
H: I repeat: Joseph Canrod did not say that.
E: I prefer not to repeat myself. In this respect
I differ greatly from most human beings.
H: You really are an empty tin can.
E: Still, I would never make the sweeping generalization
of all tins being empty, would you?
H: Right.
E: Great! Agreeing with me is the first step in your evolution
into a higher being. Please accept my congratulations.

Also have a chat with Eliza:
http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/Eliza.htm

After that, in a next lecture we'll discuss whether computation in a computer generates a mind or not. Did I chat with a mind, named Elbot?

The Discussion

[13:28] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:28] herman Bergson: and Welcome Rodney :-)
[13:29] Farv Hallison: thank you professor
[13:29] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: hard stuff again Herman.. thank you
[13:29] Farv Hallison: hello Rodney, are you a tin can?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Sybyle...try Eliza..she wont be hard on you at all ㋡
[13:29] Rodney Handrick: hi
[13:30] Rodney Handrick: No Farv...I'm not
[13:31] Farv Hallison: you have a pixelated outline, Rodney. I am wondering if you are a hologram.
[13:31] Rodney Handrick: No
[13:31] Farv Hallison: hello Ayi
[13:32] herman Bergson: No..Rodney is one of the die hearts of th Philosophy Class for years now
[13:32] herman Bergson: diehard is it , isnt it?
[13:32] Ayi Coeur: hello all
[[13:32] Rodney Handrick: This is true...:-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: But many questions about this lecture?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Understandable...
[13:33] herman Bergson: the message is only that computers are syntactic engines...
[13:33] Mick Nerido: Talking to Elza was like talking to a therapist lol
[13:33] herman Bergson: It means...they don't deal with content, but only with the shape of symbols
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...she is good
[13:34] Mick Nerido: It turned my questions back on me.
[13:34] herman Bergson: I had lengthy conversations with her which made 100% sense
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: lucky one
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes of course Mick...that is the Rogerian approach
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: she tried to escape the conversation twice
[13:35] Farv Hallison: Did she introduce any new words into the conversation?
[13:35] Rodney Handrick: I experienced the sam e thing Mike
[13:36] herman Bergson: She can Farv
[13:36] Mick Nerido: She is not a mind but a computer program designed to resemble our minds...
[13:36] herman Bergson: Oh yes Mick...
[13:36] Ayi Coeur: who is Elza?
[13:36] herman Bergson: But then you come to Artificial Intelligence..
[13:37] herman Bergson: Eliza is a computer program Ayi...
[13:37] herman Bergson: a Rogerian psycho therapist
[13:37] Ayi Coeur: ah ok:)
[13:37] Farv Hallison: as a computer program, she could be programmed to remeber previous conversations and accumulated a big dictionary of the meaning of words.
[13:37] Mick Nerido: Cheap therapy lol
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Farv...that is what Elbot seems to do
[13:38] Farv Hallison: a cheap program would just spew back sex words
[13:39] herman Bergson: Eliza doesn't like bad words Farv
[13:39] Farv Hallison: so Eliza isn't cheap/.
[13:39] herman Bergson: Oh no...
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is a scientific achievement
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: in sl we have a parrot who can talk like Eliza
[13:39] herman Bergson: The name connected to it is Weizenbaum
[13:40] Farv Hallison: I thought she was Eize Dolittle.
[13:40] herman Bergson: Joseph Weizenbaum
[13:40] Rodney Handrick: I wonder how many servers are used to run Eliza
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: And lines of code?
[13:41] herman Bergson: "Computer power and human reason"
[13:42] herman Bergson: It is not a big program Rodney...
[13:42] herman Bergson: you can find a open source Java version on the net
[13:42] Rodney Handrick: really...java...I have to look it up
[13:42] Ayi Coeur: i think it's worth trying what she has to say:)
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: but Eliza never comes to a new level of knowledge, didn't she?
[13:42] Farv Hallison: I think I saw a LSL version.
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: what is the program code called
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes...I must have it somewhere Rodney
[13:43] Farv Hallison: I saw eliza.bas
[13:43] herman Bergson: Weizenbaum wrote it in BASIC
[13:43] herman Bergson: Where Farv???
[13:43] Ayi Coeur: auw..what a lot of work
[13:44] Ayi Coeur: wb Mick
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: I'm currently taking a Stanford U course in artificial intel
[13:44] herman Bergson: Hi Mick
[13:44] herman Bergson: cool Rodney
[13:44] Mick Nerido: hit wrong button lol
[13:44] herman Bergson: lol
[13:44] Farv Hallison: Is Eliza teaching the course?
[13:45] herman Bergson: means you might be in time for the next lectures
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:45] Farv Hallison: I am the wrong button.
[13:45] herman Bergson: No Farv my name is herman
[13:45] Farv Hallison: metaphorically.
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: Is this it?
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: http://smallbasic.sourceforge.net/?q=node/56
[13:46] herman Bergson: I'd love to have a source code of Eliza and translate it to LSL
[13:47] herman Bergson: THANK YOU Rodney
[13:47] herman Bergson: I might make a philosophical Eliza :-)
[13:48] Ayi Coeur: :) in basic?
[13:48] Lizzy Pleides: we prefer you Herman!
[13:48] herman Bergson: no..LSL...so that she can work in SL
[13:48] herman Bergson: Don't worry Lizzy...I am still in charge here
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: giggles
[13:48] Ayi Coeur: and he stays that way,,,i guess..
[13:49] herman Bergson: well...I guess we are done...
[13:49] Ayi Coeur: missed the whole lecture..thanks to sl
[13:49] herman Bergson: so thank you all and today especially Rodney for the URL
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: it was brilliant, Avi ;)
[13:49] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: sure...not a problem
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: yes very good!

363: The Brain as Computer

2011-11-18T14:22:00.001+01:00

Every era seems to have an inclination to compare the brain with its latest technology. Leibniz (1646 - 1716) once compared the brain with the complex mechanics of a mill.

Later it was compared with the switchboard of a telephone system and of course, as I already mentioned in the previous lecture, Hilary Putnam was one of the philosophers inspired by the computer. So nowadays our brain has similar functionalities as a computer or visa versa.

Sience fiction LOVES to play with mind like computers. My favorite computer is Data from the Startrek series and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger… sorry…The Terminator I mean….. fine piece of machinery.

But to clearly understand what a computer is or better, what a computer does, you have to learn two basic concepts.

You need to know what it means to talk about the syntactic and semantic properties of symbols.

Syntax is from Ancient Greek σύνταξις "arrangement" from σύν syn, "together", and τάξις táxis, "an ordering". Semantic is also from the Ancient Greek σημαντικός which means "significant" in which the word σημα means "sign".

Let us assume that our brain is among other things a symbol processing system. Now we make a distinction between basic symbols and complex symbols.

I will use English words as examples of basic symbols, and l will use English sentences as examples of complex symbols.

Thus "Plato" is a basic symbol whereas "Plato wrote the Politeia" is a complex symbol. The syntactic properties of a symbol are the properties which can be detected simply by examining the symbol in isolation.

Take the basic symbol "Plato". It consists of 5 letters in a certain arrangement. The typeface is Arial, say, 3 millimeter high, on your screen. It has a certain color.

What you can't find out from the symbol itself is that Plato is an ancient Greek philosopher, or that I was the person who typed this.

Let us call this syntactic properties of the basic symbol the symbol's shape, like we can see, that a certain complex symbol is a question, because of the shape it end: the question mark ???

So, that Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher is not a syntactic property of the basic symbol "Plato". This is called a semantic property.

Simply stated, semantic properties are properties connected with the meaning of a symbol. An important semantic property of a symbol is its reference.

An other important semantical property is the truth value of a symbol. Not all symbols have a truth value, however. "Plato" as such is neither true or false.

Yet used in a complex symbol it gets a truth value. For instance the complex symbols "Plato wrote the Politeia" and "Plato wrote the Bible" have truth value.

The complex symbol gets its truth value because it claims something about the world. In general, symbols have the semantic properties of truth or falsity if and only if they make a claim about the world.

Unlike the syntactic properties, the semantic properties cannot be detected by examining a symbol in isolation.

In order to discover the reference of the symbol "Plato", staring at the symbol won't reveal this to you, you need to look it up, for instance in Wikipedia.

There it is said, that "Plato" is a symbol that refers to an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote among other things the "Politeia".

These are the basic tools we need to answer the question: is the brain or the mind just like a computer. We'll look into that some more next week.

The Discussion

herman Bergson: thank you..
Farv Hallison: thank you..
herman Bergson: Did you understand the difference between syntactic and semantic properties?
Mick Nerido: Yes I think so...
Sybyle Perdide: nods
herman Bergson: It will be important to understand computationalism
herman Bergson: If you didn't get it all 100%..just reread the lecture in the blog...
herman Bergson: It is not so difficult to understand...
Bejiita Imako: think i got most of it at least „ã°
Mick Nerido: Syntactic is the individual description of a symbol, semantic is the emaning of a symbol in a context?
herman Bergson: you make use of it every day!
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i have to reread it
herman Bergson: Let me explain...
herman Bergson: as I said
herman Bergson: you use syntax and semantics every day
Lizzy Pleides: can you give another example Herman?
herman Bergson: first ..syntax...
herman Bergson: semantics....is what the sentence means
herman Bergson: is just the order of the words in a sentence
herman Bergson: chat lag...:-(
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): like semantic is the context,? but what about semiotic?
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): do syntax again
Sybyle Perdide: semiotic is what the symbol stands for alone
Sybyle Perdide: without context
herman Bergson: syntax is is just the order of the words in a sentence
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): semantics is the meaning then
herman Bergson: yes....
Bejiita Imako: to make a working understandable sentence
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and can be different in some cases
herman Bergson: what the sentence...state of affairs the sentence refers to
Mick Nerido: Syntax= verb, noun ect.?
herman Bergson: semiotics is a different chapter
herman Bergson: yes MICK...EXACTLY!
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): semiotic is the symbols , from a larger context than the sentence s semantic
Bejiita Imako: just like syntax error in a computer program mean that the code you have typed is not correct corresponding to the language you use
Bejiita Imako: for example you cant use visual basic syntax to program in c and vice versa
herman Bergson: right Bejiita1
herman Bergson: !
Bejiita Imako: the computer don't understand the syntax
Bejiita Imako: just like i cant understand arabic
herman Bergson: on the contrary Bejiita..it only understands syntax :-)
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it does not understand the semantics
Sybyle Perdide: isn't the sytax something, we teach the pc?
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): but without semiotic, herman, the meaning, cannot be given,, out of the syntax , the word will not mean anything, but out of the social and economic context , the word don't mean anything either
herman Bergson: Well about arabic..Bejiita ..neither you or I do understand the syntax
herman Bergson: nor the semantics
Bejiita Imako: nope
herman Bergson: it is just a bunch of signs on paper....
herman Bergson: paper
Bejiita Imako: also the japanese language have another order of the words, for example the surname come before your first name
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): computer dont understand syntax?
Farv Hallison: not even the lexicography.
Bejiita Imako: and the verb comes last in the sentence
Mick Nerido: Chinese is pictographs
herman Bergson: as I saud...computers are masters in understanding syntax
herman Bergson: I do understand japanese to soem extend...
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): oh, see bejiita
herman Bergson: can read it..
Bejiita Imako: if i for example say i do this, in japanese you say sort of
Bejiita Imako: i this do
herman Bergson: yes
herman Bergson: hai, so shimasu..^_^
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): which makes sense in a way
Bejiita Imako: do is desu in japanese and desu is always last word in the sentence
Bejiita Imako: not like swedish or english
Bejiita Imako: however german is like that as well
herman Bergson: only when it is about people Bejiita...
herman Bergson: about things it is arimasu
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): konban wa
Mick Nerido: The rules of lanquage are syntax
herman Bergson: Ogenki desu ka :-)
Bejiita Imako: yes
herman Bergson: Yes Mick....indeed
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hi
Bejiita Imako: „ã°
herman Bergson: How to arrange the words in a sentence in such a way that it gets semantic content
Mick Nerido: However irregular lol
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): its like the dance footsteps
Lizzy Pleides: every languige has own rules
Sybyle Perdide: this rules are the syntax
Sybyle Perdide: how to construct
Mick Nerido: that's why tranlation is an art not a science
herman Bergson: I speak Japanese...bla bla bla ..Beertje...lol
herman Bergson: Watashi wa Nihon go wo ....
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): well mixing many language toghether is possible
Bejiita Imako: aaa
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): schud maar in mijn pet...
Farv Hallison: Can a computer understand ART?
Lizzy Pleides: we can't either sometimes
Sybyle Perdide: a pc hasn't enough knowledge of semiotic to do so
Sybyle Perdide: : 9
herman Bergson: Oh I can not speak Japanese you said Beertje
Bejiita Imako: hmm will be hard
Sybyle Perdide: laughs, Lizzy
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): japanese is making sense, in the voice tone no?
Mick Nerido: A computer can find ART but not make it
Sybyle Perdide: how can he find, Mick?
Bejiita Imako: a computer cant see the actual picture cause its digital so sees a string of binar math only while we see stuff analog directly interpreting the picture
Elle (ellenilli.lavendel) is Offline
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes Herman..i don't...
herman Bergson: No Mick...a computer cannot find art...
Sybyle Perdide: nods
Sybyle Perdide: oh
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): for the computer to find the menaing, maybe we will have to record the voice tonality, and give him a tonality decoder
Lizzy Pleides: it find a thing
Sybyle Perdide: a computer works syntactic
Mick Nerido: I can ask it to look up a painting
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): and write the tonality, in graph
Qwark Allen is Online
Sybyle Perdide: but the we are able to act semiotically
Bejiita Imako: for a computer to "see" a pic it must be converted to just a string of 1 and 0 and thats what the cpu " sees" nothing more
Bejiita Imako: just on and off
Lizzy Pleides: so it can find it but not explain it
Bejiita Imako: and then it must use an DA converter to translate all pixels back for us to see the picture in the computer
Sybyle Perdide: a pc cannot find art
herman Bergson: smiles...
Sybyle Perdide: a pc don't know what is art
herman Bergson: ok ..ok...
Lizzy Pleides: type in Google Picasso and the computer finds art
herman Bergson: Let's dig into it in a next lecture...what a computer really can do
Mot Mann is Offline
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no it finds the name Picasso..not his art
Sybyle Perdide: the computer finds the syntactical combination of art and picasso
Sybyle Perdide: not more
Mick Nerido: A computer knows art is a thing does not know its meaning
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): its decoding voice tonality actually, when we do answer to informated questionary on the phone i think, but do we translate that in text?like thISSS iNNNsTead of THat
Lizzy Pleides: nods@ sybyle
Sybyle Perdide: smiles
Bejiita Imako: for a computer to understand that someone must strictly tell the computer how to respond when it "sees" that pic
Bejiita Imako: but the computer don't understand it better anyway
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): we may have to find new police to write
herman Bergson: WEll...I see that you are all fired up...
Bejiita Imako: it just blindly strictly follows the instructions to respond in that way you told it
herman Bergson: ready to hit the computer ^_^
Lizzy Pleides: the computer is a machine and it is stupid
herman Bergson: Let's do that next Tuesday..to begin with !
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): talking dos to the pc is not to bad, he teaches us his languages
Sybyle Perdide: yes, Lizzy
Sybyle Perdide: agrees
Sybyle Perdide: thank you herman
Sybyle Perdide: it was great
herman Bergson: yes Lizzy..computers are stupid ...to begin with
Sybyle Perdide: (because I got the semantic frame..hihi)
Bejiita Imako: a computer don't care if you scream at it when its not working or even if you blow it up with dynamite cause of that more than it will never work anymore after that
herman Bergson: so if our mind is like a computer maybe we are stupid too :-)))
Lizzy Pleides: giggles*
Bejiita Imako: is just a dumb calculator but the speed it does it at makes everything it can do happen
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): actually, computer, are how far we can creat a machine that will process.... faster,,, not more intelligently
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and who is giving the comments on the keyboard for us then?
Bejiita Imako: an i/ cpu does 177 bilion calculations/instructions per second
Bejiita Imako: even the first cpu the 4004 did around between 400000 and 900000
herman Bergson: Yes Alaya...that is how Big Blue defeated Kasparov in chess
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): oh
herman Bergson: just by speed and access to millions of data
Bejiita Imako: that say a bit how much a computer must do for anything to happen at all
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): hope that he can process the formula to denuclearised the contaminant
herman Bergson: What I find most fascinating is ...in movies...
herman Bergson: where a computer acts as a sentient person....
Mick Nerido: can we measure a computers IQ?
herman Bergson: no Mick
herman Bergson: because the outcome is what we programmed in it
herman Bergson: so it make no sense to measure its intelligence
herman Bergson: we know it in advance
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): i think that when we standardized and fix language in time, we do computerise our way of expression, making it artificial more than chanign and alive
Bejiita Imako: this is also why a terminator will never happen, although a computer can be self learning someone must deliberately program it to turn against us for it to do that all of a sudden
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): if our language become fixed, we have to change the software,,,in our m mind,s and its not working that way
Bejiita Imako: it could never get a such decision by itself cause a computer cant understand evil unless programmed to it
Bejiita Imako: by a person
herman Bergson: Do you know the laws of robotics Bejiita as formulated by Isaac Asimov?
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): but when its alive , it is adjusting and integrate all sort of meaning and new words
Bejiita Imako: yes a computer should never cause harm to anyone and must also prevent it from happening
Bejiita Imako: sort of
Bejiita Imako: something like that
Lizzy Pleides: so Asimov was intelligent and not the robot
Bejiita Imako: was 2 different rules i think
herman Bergson: yes ^_^!
Sybyle Perdide: yeah
herman Bergson: YE sI have to look them up myself for the details...
herman Bergson: But you are right, Bejiita
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): iff we compare the brain to computer, than we are forced to change our program s...?? as when we change the work mechanic and than ergonomic troubles arise
herman Bergson: Well..I think you are all ready for the computational theory of mind...now :-)
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): we will have semantic problem or syntaxic ones?
herman Bergson: We'll see Alaya...
Sybyle Perdide: hihi
Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman!
herman Bergson: SO thank you all for your good participation...again!
Farv Hallison: bye guys and girls.
herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
Bejiita Imako: a ye
Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
Bejiita Imako: really interesting „ã°
Sybyle Perdide: ciao Farv
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
Sybyle Perdide: good nigh to all
Alaya Ch√©paspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): thanks
Lizzy Pleides: Good night everybody
herman Bergson: Bye girls ^_^
Bejiita Imako: night
herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
herman Bergson: thnx