370: The Brain and a new point of view

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***********

368: The Brain and Consciousness

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

305: The Brain in Evolution

In my former lecture I showed you, that the idea we have of ourselves as rational beings with an absolute free will, is not exactly accurate.

If it is for free will, the neurosciences have shown what an immense machinery is already at work in the brain before we enter the realm of conscious action.

As such the idea is not new, It was Freud who forced us to drastically revise our view of the human being as the rational beings with a absolute free will.

A lot of our actions are caused or influenced by what he called the subconscious. A realm of our inner self which we not could enter by means of introspection, for instance.

With respect to the content and ensuing drives generated by this subconscious, Freud was wrong, although there are some features in his theory, that can be interpreted in an other way.

The homo sapiens has come a long way, more than 4 million years of evolution. In the ongoing interaction between organism and environment our brain has developed into the most sophisticated tool for survival.

But keep in mind,that this has been a process of millions of years, while the prefrontal cortex, which is almost 80% of the brain volume, only was fully operational about a 35.000 years ago.

I sometimes wondered, if mankind really was making progress in its development. Sure, we witness an incredible scientific and technological development.

But then I looked at man himself, his literature. There you read always the same stories about love and hate and friendship. Nothing seems the have changed in that respect.

But when you put is in an evolutionary perspective the picture changes completely and it becomes clear which error I made. The brain took millions of years to evolve into what it is now.

What I take into consideration is only the past 2000 years and only the past 300 years are characterized by scientific development and only the past 150 years by technological development.

A huge and fast development which changes our environment in particular. Evolutionary changes take more then thousands of years, while these days environmental changes take less than a 100 years.

The organism homo sapiens has to adapt, while the wiring of his brain is still in an evolutionary stage that was used to a completely different environment. In a way you could say that the brain is evolutionary behind on schedule.

35.000 years ago we lived in caves and survival was our core business. The brain enabled us to develop social behavior, which proved to contribute to the chance to survive.

You could say that the life of the homo sapiens in those days was controlled by instincts, emotions and some reasoning, which enabled him to develop tools.

It leads me to the thought, that the brain structure of those days is largely still the structure of our brain. This could be an explanation for why mankind nowadays shows such a variety in social behavior.

This earth shows social groups from the tribes in the Amazone to the complex social organization of a country like the Netherlands. And all humans use the same tool to survive: the brain.

Freud was right in his observation, that a lot of our behavior is determined by drives which we are not aware of. He was just mistaken about what drives it were.

The brain generates basic emotions, emotions you find in all human beings. Responses to the environment, to the social group, which have a long evolutionary history.

What I mean by emotion, I'll define most accurately in the next lecture to tell it apart from feelings. Thus we'll enter a next stage in our quest to understand the Mystery of the Brain.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you... ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: You have the floor
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...feel free...
[13:21] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): One might come top the conclusion that we are only wolves in sheep's clothing.
[13:22] BALDUR Joubert: how about other survival tools...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well..to some extend I think so Aristotle....
[13:22] Mick Nerido: The technological revolution and industrialization have changed everything, why did it even happen?
[13:22] herman Bergson: What we call culture and civilization is just a thin layer of varnish...
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: because one of our instincts is to be curious and develop tools
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: unique ability for humans
[13:23] herman Bergson: One of the things in evolution Mick is that it has no goal...
[13:23] herman Bergson: so the question why doesn't apply here
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: and also curiosity, one of our basic drives is to understand things around os and make use of that
[13:24] Mick Nerido: It was not inevitable just a chance occurrance
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: us
[13:24] herman Bergson: unless you ask the question within the historic context
[13:24] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): The evolution of the cerebral cortex is the camoflage for our primal selves
[13:25] herman Bergson: A way to put it Aristotle.. :-)
[13:25] Mick Nerido: Dalphins have complex brains with no technology
[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: i think i repeat myself..but for me brain has not undergone evolution since propably 100000 years..if yes..of minor importance
[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: technology is not evolution..
[13:25] herman Bergson: That is what I have said too Baldur.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: To give you an example...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Based on the evolution of the brain...
[13:26] herman Bergson: the observed which brain areas were active when making a simple fist ax...a shapend stone...
[13:27] Merel Heron: i have the feeling that this way of looking at the evolution is very male like
[13:27] Mick Nerido: I bring up technology because we are all sitting at our computers around the world and yet in the same room connected
[13:27] herman Bergson: from that they could conclude that certain of our ancestors weren't able to make such tools because they not yet possessed those brain areas
[13:27] Merel Heron: being a woman it feels that way
[13:28] herman Bergson: A male like view of evolution ??? Merel?
[13:28] Merel Heron: may be i am wrong i came very late in this conversation
[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): hmmm
[13:28] Merel Heron: i am from Amsterdam
[13:29] herman Bergson: What suggests the male like approach, Merel?
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: unfortunately we don't know anything about the brain of our far away ancestors.. just skulls as indicators
[13:29] Merel Heron: and had a study about philosophy
[13:29] Merel Heron: but it is very interesting to listen to you
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: hm.-.the durch connection..grin
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is not true BALDUR...
[13:30] herman Bergson: we know about the evolution of brain volume pretty much as well as the ensuing skills of the hominides
[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Merel may have a valid observation in the maleness of acknowledged views
[13:31] herman Bergson: Just look at the table on the wall
[13:31] Mick Nerido: Is the a male and female mind?
[13:31] Merel Heron: very clinical to me but i can see now your approach is special for the brain
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes Merel...we try to reveal the mystery of the brain.....and in the end the mystery of how the brain can generate consciousness
[13:32] Merel Heron: aha
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: we know about skills.. but the brain volume differs from one species to another..
[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): how much subjectivity is involved in the release of newly found 'truths'?
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i didn't tell her that...yet..
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: some hominoides had bigger brains than we did
[13:32] herman Bergson: But before we reach that I dissect the brain from the neurobiologicalperspective...
[13:33] herman Bergson: /.
[13:33] herman Bergson: Only the Neanderthaler had...was about 1500cc while the homo sapiens had 1400
[13:33] herman Bergson: oops ㋡
[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): boom
[13:33] bergfrau Apfelbaum: wow :-) schöne aura!! herman
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Is there physical differences between Male and female brains
[13:34] herman Bergson: Danke Bergie
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: size mick
[13:34] herman Bergson: Not that I know of Mick.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: lol Baldur
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: smile no joke but fact..
[13:35] herman Bergson: I'll check it out....:)
[13:35] Mick Nerido: I mean if you dissect is the any difference
[13:35] herman Bergson: So far I havent read about it....but I don't assume that it makes much difference…
[13:35] Merel Heron: i am wondering if there is a difference
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: volume propably doesn't automatically mean more neurons..
[13:36] Mick Nerido: male and females act so differently
[13:36] herman Bergson: I don't think such a difference has any relevance for our cause here
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: and connections
[13:36] herman Bergson: That difference is interesting for psychologists
[13:36] Merel Heron: no volume must not be the difference
[13:36] Mick Nerido: Hormones...
[13:37] Merel Heron: it is the approach
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thankfully, primally thinking, there remains a differnce between women, cerebrally....women may possess the advantage
[13:37] Merel Heron: i think
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...but men as well as women are sentient conscious beings...there is no difference from a philosophical point of view to me
[13:38] Merel Heron: mmmm good to hear
[13:38] herman Bergson: Don't mix up psychology and philosophy....
[13:38] Merel Heron: yes ha ha that is what i did !!1
[13:38] herman Bergson: the philosophical question is about the brain and consciousness.....
[13:39] herman Bergson: and it doesn't matter at all in what kind of body that brain resides ㋡
[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I agree, the power to think critically is unisex
[13:39] Mick Nerido: The mystery is that there is conscioucness at all
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: the emotional side could be different..
[13:40] herman Bergson: More than that Aristotle....we all have what they call the reptilian brain.....
[13:40] herman Bergson: the oldest parts of the brain in an evolutionary sense
[13:40] herman Bergson: This will be our next area of investigation....
[13:41] herman Bergson: And yes...there are differences between men and women....
[13:41] Merel Heron: reptilian brain... I have a look what that is .
[13:41] herman Bergson: But they have special consequences for the evolution of social behavior
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: snakes merel.. eve and the snake..got us the reptile brain
[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am sure the female reptilian brain is now scaly like a mans
[13:42] herman Bergson: It is a name for the limbic system and what is below that part of the brain
[13:42] Merel Heron: mmmmmm thanks
[13:43] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes! the limbic system
[13:43] herman Bergson: We will discuss the man/woman differences....
[13:43] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the go between
[13:43] herman Bergson: especially if you go back to the early homo sapiens... and procreation
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: this could be the next 100 lectures herman-man/woman difference
[13:44] herman Bergson: No ..philosophically uninteresting unless you refer to our Women Philosophers project...
[13:45] herman Bergson: There you can read about the shameful thing named male philosopher...to beginwith Aristotle...
[13:45] herman Bergson: But that is all in the blog ㋡
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: just because the ancient philosophers ignored the subject..doesn't mean it could not have philosophical interest:)
[13:45] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, I remember :)
[13:46] herman Bergson: The ancient philosophers didn't ignore it at all Baldur..THAT is the problem...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Aristotle describes the woman as a being closer to an animal than to a human
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: may be not ignore..but they were ignorants on the subject :)
[13:47] Merel Heron: oh la la
[13:47] herman Bergson: and that idea was (eagerly) adopted by the roman catholics....
[13:47] herman Bergson: with al consequences...
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): some people do think that in these days too
[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): males have shown their desire to maintainthe status quo at any cost
[13:47] herman Bergson: that education was a wast eon women....
[13:47] herman Bergson: to beginwith
[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): cost to the revelation truth
[13:48] Merel Heron: this is a very interesting statement
[13:48] herman Bergson: It took 1500 centuries before the first woman attended formal education
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Are there noted female philosophers?
[13:48] herman Bergson: A lot....
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: whats really scary is that in ancient egypt the position of women was vbery close to our time
[13:49] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): indeed, you should read the blog of the Herman's lectures on them
[13:49] herman Bergson: Related to our subject here...Patricia Churchland....
[13:49] herman Bergson: She introduced the discipline of neurophilosophy....
[13:49] herman Bergson: If I am not mistaken she published the book with that title in 1986
[13:49] herman Bergson: Very influential
[13:49] Merel Heron: what about Heloise?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Teh girlfriend of Abelard?
[13:50] Merel Heron: yes the girlfriend
[13:51] herman Bergson: Of course through history there were women who helped themselves with education.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: but what it is all about is that education for women is socially accepted...
[13:51] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): education and enlightnement are the keys
[13:51] herman Bergson: that had to wait till 1850 or so
[13:52] herman Bergson: So to conclude....
[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the denial of education are censorship or it is the way to hold folks back
[13:52] herman Bergson: The difference between the male and female brain is from a philosophical point of view irrelevant... ㋡
[13:53] Mick Nerido: Thats good news
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:53] herman Bergson: My pleasure Mick ^_^
[13:53] herman Bergson: Well thank you all for this pleasant discussion ....
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: |:)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: nice
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: as usual
[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thank you Professor!
[13:54] herman Bergson: let's see what evolution will tell us further about the brain next lecture
[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and....'thank goodness for little girls'
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:54] Mick Nerido: You were great as usual
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:54] herman Bergson: thank you Mick
[13:54] Josiane Llewellyn: Thanks professor, everyone
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: grin a maurice chevalier fan..:)
[13:55] Merel Heron: thank you Professor
[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): :)
[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): indeed
[13:55] Merel Heron: something to think about !!!!
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it was very interesting..thank you Herman
[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and a marvelous thing this 'thinking'
[13:55] herman Bergson: There is a blog Merel....
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all ㋡
[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You Herman - thanx all - enjoy the rest of the day /night
[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks, herman! was very interesting!
[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): bye Ciska
[13:56] herman Bergson: Thank you ciska....
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and class :-)
[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thank you Bergie
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: cu ㋡
[13:56] herman Bergson: http://thephilososphyclass.blogspot.com
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Bejiita
[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): bye Bejitta

284: A final conclusion

Like every organism on these planet the homo sapiens is a result of evolution. We may be inclined to think only of his physical appearance, but of course the brain is not exempt from this evolution.

The central nervous system has been the tool in evolution that made us survive in changing environments. Through the millennia it developed two strategies: the capacity for both logical analysis and intuitive reasoning, but one is slow and ponderous while the other is fast and furious.

The idea is that the intuitive part of the mind developed earlier in evolution than the rational part. It makes sense. The brain is wired to see order and structures, so that we can interpret our experiences and decide how to act on them.

Maybe some individuals weren't satisfied with such interpretations and stared to wonder, if there could be other explanations for the phenomena. This might have been the beginning of the evolution of the rational part of the mind.

What crosses my mind here is, that in the jungles of the Amazone there still may live undiscovered tribes. They are still hunters and live in a way their prehistoric answers might have lived.

Do they live in a world, where their supersense has prevailed over the rational part of the brain. Does it indicate how the evolution of the brain is influenced by environment?

How about us? We have our intuitive thinking, to believe there are things out there, where the rational part of the mind says: you are mistaken. Yet we are inclined to believe in psychological essentialism, vitalism, holism.

We are inclined to an intuitive dualism and the idea that the mind can exist independently of the body. All of these ways of thinking are both naturally emerging and yet supernatural in their explanations of the world.

Can we ever get rid of the supersense? Will the evolution of mankind continue and make us evolve into a species that uses logic over and above emotion and intuition?

This seems unlikely and there are some reasons why. In the first place I have said from the beginning that our brain is wired to generate our rationality but also our supersense.

This inclination to hold supernatural beliefs is part of our make-up and it seemingly served us well through evolution, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

There is another reason. Our intuitive thinking makes it possible to hold certain values as sacred. It tells us that there are things we should not question. Something is sacred when members of society regard it as beyond any monetary value.

A situation: a hospital with debts. The managing director gets one million dollars. He has a choice: spend the money on an urgent transplant operation that will save the life of a child or reduce the hospital's debts, which would guarantee the future of the hospital. What would you do? Most people would say: of course …save the child.

And other questionable questionable things: would you love to posses and wear the clothes of a serial killer, or add the meat hooks to your collection of memorabilia, by which the Nazis have hung their victims.

I think that you can regard value ethics as an expression of this conviction, which we share with others in our society and which binds us.

On the other hand when our rational part of the mind would be our only (social) tool everything would be reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. It is material, analytic, scientific. Everything only would have its price.

Some people in our society tend to believe so. How much do I have to pay you for sleeping with your wife? Some of you may frown, others might feel a moral outrage.

Yet I see here a parallel with Jeremy Benthem's attempt to calculate measures of happiness. Utilitarianism as the cost-benefit analysis of moral values.

My conclusion is, that our supersense is deeply embedded in our thinking and ironically makes it possible for us to regard certain supernatural beliefs as rational. And this holds society together.

On the other hand it means that we can have access to the mechanisms of the brain that generate our supersense ideas, which may help us understand their irrationality and function in human life.

By understanding the functioning of the brain more and more we also may understand better and better how to deal with the meaning of the supernatural in human psychology and even with fundamental philosophical questions about the self, identity and consciousness.

For now, the brain and neurological findings are our next station.


The discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:26] herman Bergson: You have the floor ^_^
[13:26] Simargl Talaj: People living in hunter-gatherer subsistence mode are not more intuitive, less rational. They're rational, with different data.
[13:26] Simargl Talaj: I reject also that purely rational life would be amoral. Logic proceeds from premise, actions from objectives. If my premise/objective is harmlessness, I am rational and ethical.
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: i would like to join your conclusion of the embedding in our thinking :-)
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Simargl your first remark is right.
[13:27] Simargl Talaj: hunter-gatherers tell us nothing about brain evolution because they are not primitive.
[13:27] herman Bergson: what I only wanted to bring to your attention is the contingency of the development of the mind
[13:27] Simargl Talaj: They tell us only about culture in relation to environment.
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: so, as rational humans we recognize that the collective as large as it has gorwn cannot hold together, so we invent a paste to secure it
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...that seems to be the man function of our supersense
[13:29] herman Bergson: the hunter-gatherers have certainly the same evolution of the brain as we have...
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: an artificail state of affairs for a portion's benefit
[13:30] herman Bergson: but their environment didn't probably provoke rationality to survive....I dont know
[13:30] Simargl Talaj: Indeed hunter gatherer life requires more rationality than urban life.
[13:30] herman Bergson: What is interesting is that science and technology developed in Europe mainly...
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect the brainstem is fixed and our cerebral cortex only attempts to keep it in check
[13:31] herman Bergson: The chinese culture shows a lot of scientific insights long before the European ones developed...
[13:32] Simargl Talaj: as did the Arabs
[13:32] Simargl Talaj: no culture keeps the lead at all times
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: and that our cerebral evolution is self-determined
[13:32] herman Bergson: There never was a Chinese or arabic Newton or Copernicus for instance
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: there are many conflicts in this situation i think
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is not about the lead Simargl
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: perhaps perception is part of the answer
[13:33] herman Bergson: It is about the effect on global development of the species...
[13:33] Simargl Talaj: to be rational and to be learned are two different things. Science requires not only rationality but texts, precedents, giant shoulders to stand upon.
[13:33] herman Bergson: So the history of science is an interesting source of information...
[13:34] Simargl Talaj: There is no evidence of European brains having any greater rational faculty than those of desert aborigines. Science is an effect of history, not evolution.
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is not the point Simargl....
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:34] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: i think it is cultural also
[13:34] herman Bergson: What this is about is the relation between evolution of the brain and environment
[13:35] herman Bergson: the relation between environment and the development of culture
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: the math that europeans used came from the east
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...that is SOOO remarkable…
[13:35] herman Bergson: Our logic comes from india
[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: yes Gemma,, isn't that fascinating?!
[13:35] herman Bergson: our math comes from arabic scientists in the 10th century
[13:36] Simargl Talaj: Herman, so are you asking "Is it possible to dispense with supersense, cuz its intuitive basis is maybe not needed now?"
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: like Algebra and such
[13:36] herman Bergson: Then you misunderstood Simargl...
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and the numbers we use are arabic symbols
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: seems the Europeans were good at reaping other culture's evolutionary progress
[13:36] herman Bergson: I said it is part and parcel of our brain /mind
[13:37] herman Bergson: Dawkins would love to discard of supersense I guess
[13:37] herman Bergson: I think that is a mistake....
[13:37] herman Bergson: It would mean to deactivate about 50% of our brain I guess
[13:38] herman Bergson: Besides as Aristotle also noted....it works as a social paste...
[13:38] herman Bergson: We NEED values to control our social behavior
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: that is not a good picture in my eyes
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: social paste
[13:38] Simargl Talaj: I reject that values can only emerge from the antirational.
[13:38] herman Bergson: social glue..Aristotle used paste
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: some of us apply oil to keep the paste from adhering
[13:39] herman Bergson: That Simargl was the idea of the utilitarians too.
[13:39] Simargl Talaj: To the conttrary I believe evil emerges chiefly from the antirational.
[13:39] herman Bergson: antirational????
[13:39] Simargl Talaj: witch hunts illustrate this
[13:39] Simargl Talaj: that which is believed in spite of and against rational examination
[13:40] Simargl Talaj: and rejects the validity of rational examination
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: there is always a benefit to someone in every atrosity
[13:40] herman Bergson: that is our definition more or less of supersense, yes
[13:41] herman Bergson: The cost-benefit analysis is what the rationality comes up with to establish values
[13:41] herman Bergson: What do we win - what do we loose...
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: how much did the church benefit from the crusades, how much are we paying for it today?
[13:42] Simargl Talaj: If you properly assess benefit and cost, this is moral. If my sense of "cost" includes your pain.
[13:42] herman Bergson: and the matter is, that we value certain things that cant be expressed in terms of money
[13:43] herman Bergson: As I said before...study Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill on this approach of ethics
[13:43] Simargl Talaj: It is irrational to assess such things in terms of money. So that failure is not a failure of the rational.
[13:44] Simargl Talaj: it is a failure to be rational.
[13:45] herman Bergson: I guess that is a rational conclusion Simargl :-)
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: aaa trye
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: true
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: not all value can be expressed in money
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all for your particiaption.....
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: money is a very rational motive
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: Thanks, Professor
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: what is a human worth for example
[13:46] herman Bergson: We'll move on to the next stage of our quest about the brain/mind
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: a life cant be measured in money
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: yet it is
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: or at least in trade for it
[13:47] Simargl Talaj: in fact we measure our own lives in money when we decide to take a risk because avoiding it would be too expensive.
[13:47] herman Bergson: Exactly bejiita
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: money equals survival
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: money is just a way we use to put value on things
[13:48] herman Bergson: A would call that an American way of thinking with a failing healthcare system, Simargl :-)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: cause we want to have something back for doing something, ex, make a product
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL and now we have a new frontier after the election,all hell is breaking loose
[13:48] Simargl Talaj: <= outraged American, advocate of national healthcare
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes ari
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: me too simargi
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hahah
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: Ok this is of the record now...
[13:49] herman Bergson: officially class is dismissed
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥