skip to main |
skip to sidebar
After our intriguing questions about substance dualism, let's turn to the more traditional objections against this form of dualism.The substance dualist makes two claims about the mind. One: Mind and body are radically different kinds of substances.Two: Mind and body causally interact.These two claims are in tension. If mind and body are supposed to radically different, how can they causally interact?This objection was first put to Descartes by his contemporary, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618 - 1680). Descartes' replies were highly evasive.He couldn't do anything else because he had no answer. In an attempt to find the answer he even did physical research on brains and in there he found the pineal gland, which he declared to be the point of connection between body and mind.Unfortunately this is the only explanation we have got. In the physical world all kinds of different substances exist. Sunshine can heat metal, for instance.Two very different kinds of physical substances: kind of electromagnetic radiation against an assembly of atoms. Yet physics can tell us in considerable detail about the way light affects metal.A substance dualist like the "inventor" of this metaphysics, Descartes himself, however, can provide no details at all about the way the mind and the brain affect each other.A good theory of mind should be able to explain a number of basic aspects of our mental states. For instance, (1) some mental states are caused by states of the world.(2) Some mental states are caused by actions. (3) some mental states cause other mental states. (4) some mental states are conscious. (5) Some mental states are about things in the world. (6) Some mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.What is striking about substance dualism is the extend to which it fails to illuminate the items on this list. The first two can already not be answered by the substance dualist.Substance dualism has to face more fundamental questions.The "Cogito, ergo sum" is a kind of "Here I am" statement. But this statement has a weak point: it is only ME who is there.Are you there too? How can I achieve knowledge of other minds? How can I know that other people have minds, since the only mind to which I have direct access is my own mind?The body is a physical object, controlled and determined by the laws of physics. If the mind is free, but the body is determined, it looks as if the freedom of the mind, the freedom of will, makes no difference.And there is the danger of skepticism. Everything can be a delusion, except my "cogito". It means that I am imprisoned in my own mind. If I am locked in my own experiences, how can I really know anything of an external world.?It may be clear that substance dualism is not an adequate explanation of what exists in our universe. Of course we know that we have a mind, that we have consciousness.But the idea that this mind is a special substance, which only interacts with our physical body, is hard to defend, since there is not the slightest evidence, that such a mental substance exists.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: So much for substance dualisme...[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:23] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions or give your remarks...the floor is yours[13:25] herman Bergson: This all sounded familiar to you all...[13:25] herman Bergson: Piece of cake?[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no not at all[13:25] Doodus Moose: i took a stress relief course....[13:25] Astronomer Somerset: ok our entire existence our experiences are unique to us because we experience and recognize each experiences according to our own internal model of the world and how we interpret them[13:25] Mick Nerido: This mental substance is akin to soul, not physically verifible[13:25] Qwark Allen: is there a possibility of a 3rd possibility?[13:26] Qwark Allen: non polarized[13:26] herman Bergson: well...[13:26] herman Bergson: if something is not physically verifiable, how can we have knowledge of it then???[13:26] Qwark Allen: seems a bit computer language , zero and one[13:27] Mick Nerido: Indirect evidence?[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: herman a fish swims in water but is it physically aware of the water in which it swims[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Qwark, the first problem me have been that we began counting.....a body and a soul and a mind...[13:28] Qwark Allen: it`s not really a dualism then[13:28] herman Bergson: what do you mean by indirect evidence Mick?[13:28] Astronomer Somerset: we as humans are currently traveling at over 400 miles an hour but we are not physically aware of the fact[13:28] herman Bergson: If you take reality as One, as Spinoza already did, there is no counting...no dualism...[13:29] herman Bergson: no Astro, but you could explain why that is in full detail I guess[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i can but i could not prove it without taking the observer off the planet and showing him the world revolving[13:30] Qwark Allen: the more i think about it, more logical seems to have 3 parts[13:30] herman Bergson: which three parts do you see Qwark?[13:30] Mick Nerido: Dualism requires no explanation other than it is what seem to explain my personal experience.[13:31] Qwark Allen: body, mind and soul[13:31] herman Bergson: hmmmm MIck.....[13:31] herman Bergson: Dualistic thinking is so deeply embeded in our culture.....[13:31] Qwark Allen: wherever you look in nature , 3 seems to be the answer to the the all thing[13:31] herman Bergson: religion plays an important part in that....[13:32] Astronomer Somerset: herman is a schiziophrenic aware of their other selfs[13:32] Qwark Allen: a tree have the body, leaves and the liquid to feed the leaves[13:32] herman Bergson: The magic of numbers Qwark....[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: and language[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: i still think language separates this[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: the 3 parts[13:32] herman Bergson: you also could say that a tree consists of billions of cells all with their own function...[13:33] Qwark Allen: was just a thought that dualism maybe , a little rationalist[13:33] Qwark Allen: to simplistic to explain[13:33] herman Bergson: the separation in three parts is a product of your brain , not a special property of the tree, I would say[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...:-)[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: herman - thats very buddhistic now[13:34] herman Bergson: I dont mind labels Ciska...[13:34] Mick Nerido: The brain has evolved to the point of conscious thought that seperates it from other physical reality[13:34] herman Bergson: But I start with regarding reality as one matter[13:35] Astronomer Somerset: a computer is a true dualist system it has physical hardware and seperate software and the two radically different components interact to produce something more than the two parts[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes mick....our brain can organize our experiences of the external world...put a kind of order into it to handle it[13:35] Mick Nerido: What is this matter that can think?[13:36] herman Bergson: THAT is our MAIN question Mick...yes![13:36] Astronomer Somerset: and computers are modeled on us[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Astro, but only in a primitive way...[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll get to that subject.....[13:37] Astronomer Somerset: our physical bodies are the hardware and our thought and emmotions are the software s[13:37] herman Bergson: You know Astro....[13:37] Mick Nerido: Science my prove dualism wrong but there is such a difference fromhow are brain works than any other organ[13:37] herman Bergson: through history people always have taken something from their reality to make it a model of how man is constructed...[13:38] herman Bergson: Leibniz compared the human being with a windmill....high tech in his time....[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: i am only offering explanations to prove dualism is a possibility[13:38] herman Bergson: Later the brain was compared to a switchboard for telephone....[13:38] herman Bergson: today we love to compare ourselves with computers...[13:39] herman Bergson: Historically an interesting phenomenon....[13:39] Mick Nerido: We build the way were are made...[13:39] herman Bergson: Since Descartes time we love to see the human body as a machine for instance[13:40] herman Bergson: But what does it teach us about the mind body problem....?[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: ok so how do you explain such things as schitzophrenia in a pure singularity existence[13:40] herman Bergson: that is a disfunction of the brain....[13:41] herman Bergson: I don't know if we have all explanations for the phenomenon already...[13:41] herman Bergson: But we know that there goes something wrong in the brain[13:41] Astronomer Somerset: but each separate state is a separate interpretation of that persons existence and i have seen such people with both male and female character traits[13:42] Mick Nerido: Joan d' Arc was probably schizo[13:42] herman Bergson: oh yes...anything is possible if the brain starts short circuiting[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Mick....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: including dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: We have the "God Helmet" now created by that Canadian neuroscientist...[13:43] herman Bergson: Thsi helmet can create such "religious" experiences....[13:44] herman Bergson: Forgot the name...[13:44] Mick Nerido: Is it always a mis function then?[13:44] herman Bergson: I gave a lecture about that[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: good question Mick[13:44] herman Bergson: I would say yes....[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: well- that is based on our values[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: of course[13:44] Mick Nerido: She was a great leader...[13:45] herman Bergson: no..not based on values...but on knowledge13:45] herman Bergson: That she was a great leader doesn't proof a thing Mick...[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge of the past[13:45] herman Bergson: except that she was a great leader[13:46] Mick Nerido: Many saints died as for their belies, were they nuts?[13:46] Mick Nerido: beliefs[13:46] herman Bergson: On the other hand you also can say that Joan was efficiently used by those who were in power...untill she became unconvenient....and simply was murdered by those who were in power[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: herman may i ask do you have any physical proof that dualism does not exist or are you prophiciating your own interpretation and beliefs[13:47] herman Bergson: Well Mick...for that I have only one question....[13:47] herman Bergson: Why aren't there saints anymore today.....[13:47] Mick Nerido: Herman I will nominate you![13:48] herman Bergson: smiles[13:48] herman Bergson: forget it..[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): mother Teresa?[13:48] herman Bergson: No...our view has changed....[13:48] herman Bergson: no Beertje...[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: well- thats exactly what i meant before herman[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge alters[13:48] herman Bergson: I mean saints that see Maria or Jesus himself or things like that[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: and with alteration we judge differently[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: some people would state the Dalai Lama as on like that[13:49] herman Bergson: When somebody would tell us that he had spoken to Jesus personally and has a message for us, we would at least frown at the person....[13:49] Astronomer Somerset: those are visionaries herman not saints[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes - we lable them differently[13:49] Mick Nerido: The mind can overrule what is best for our bodies and our loves, a kind of dualism[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: just different language - agree with you there #Astro[13:50] Astronomer Somerset: to be a saint they must have performed miricales[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: and what is a miracal is again defined by values and knowledge at that very moment[13:50] herman Bergson: According to ROme..indeed Astro..you evenhave to have performed three miracles![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: yes you do[13:51] herman Bergson: That rules me out, Mick....I haven't performed a single miracle[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: one could call leonardo or copernicus or newton visionaries but non are saints[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): after death Herman...[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: michael angelo claims his image of god was a vison[13:52] herman Bergson: I don't know what you mean by visionaries Astro, unless you mean...excellent scientists[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: every scientist needs a vision[13:52] herman Bergson: imagination Ciska...[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: star trek beamer leads to scientist searching for it in swiss[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: no a visionary is someone who experiences a sudden realisation outside of a normal experience herman[13:52] herman Bergson: drive[13:52] Mick Nerido: It's a miracle getting me to understand philosophy![13:53] Ciska Riverstone: where is the difference herman?[13:53] Qwark Allen: ehehhe nice mick[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: *gggg* mick ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: Cool Mick...two to go for me then ^_^[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: count me in ;)[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...were are we?[13:54] herman Bergson: Done with substance dualism?[13:54] Mick Nerido: Humor is only possible in higher brains, why?[13:55] herman Bergson: That is because of self relection Mick[13:55] herman Bergson: Humor is always making a joke of yourself...[13:55] herman Bergson: animals have no ability to self reflection[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to go[13:56] herman Bergson: They can look in a mirror, but only we can laugh at the sight :-)[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very interesting as usual[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: bye qwark[13:56] Qwark Allen: thank you hermann[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark![13:56] herman Bergson: Give my regards to Gemma[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not in the mornings Herman,,pfew....those wrinkles..[13:56] Doodus Moose: self reflection on ones' self reflection?[13:56] herman Bergson: Just then you should laugh Beertje...[13:57] herman Bergson: Friends....[13:57] herman Bergson: this was again a nice discussion[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman - very interesting as always[13:57] herman Bergson: I don't think we are done yet, so next Thursday same time same place ![13:58] Mick Nerido: Very nice discussion, thanks all![13:58] herman Bergson: yes thank you all...[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)))[13:58] Doodus Moose: Thanks indeed, Professor![13:58] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:58] isobelle Garnet: very interesting thank you[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[13:59] herman Bergson: You too ciska![13:59] Doodus Moose: byeeee!!!!!!![13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight all:))[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye:)[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: bye herman[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Astro...[14:02] isobelle Garnet: bye thank you[14:02] herman Bergson: You're ok Alaya?[14:03] herman Bergson: You are ^_^[14:03] herman Bergson: bye[14:03] Teleport completed from http://slu
In my research I came across something that was completely new to me. An attack on the principle, on which Descartes based his argument: the principle of indiscernibility of identicals. It is so exciting that I quote you the whole text.-Begin QUOTE: source Wikipedia (english)The principle of indiscernibility of identicals – that if two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties – is mostly uncontroversial. However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to his body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist.This argument is rejected by many modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity. Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via reductio ad absurdum, such as the following argument based on a secret identity: 1. Entities x and y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa. 2. Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact. 3. Lois Lane thinks that Clark Kent cannot fly. 4. Lois Lane thinks that Superman can fly. 5. Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly. 6. Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent. 7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:- Leibniz's law is wrong; or- A person's knowledge about x is not a predicate of x; or- The application of Leibniz's law is erroneous; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic, properties; or- What people think about are not the actual objects themselves; or- A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs. Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.[3]End QUOTEOf course I can give the the standard objections to dualism and I will, but like this attack on the principle which Descartes uses, you never read much about the semantics of Cogito ergo sum in the standard introductory textbooks on philosophy.But just take a minute to look at that statement "I think, therefore I am". If it is a proposition, or actually two propositions, one inferred from the other, then it must have a truth value. The propositions must be either TRUE or FALSE.Suppose that the propositions are true and then take the first two theses of the Tractatus of Wittgenstein:1 The world is everything that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.Thinking is a factual process…leads to being as some factual state. So far so good, but the process and state are depending on this "I". Where did Descartes find that "I"??? To what fact does this "I" refer to?Then I found an article by Jaako Hintikka ,a Finnish philosopher and logician, in the magazine "The Philosophical Review", Vol. 71,No. 1 (1962) and my heart jumped. Let me quote the first paragraph and you'll understand why.-begin QUOTE1. COGITO, ERGO SUM as a problem. The fame (some would say the notoriety) of the adage cogito, ergo sum makes one expect that scholarly industry has long since exhausted whatever interest it may have historically or topically. A perusal of the relevant literature, however, fails to satisfy this expectation. After hundreds of discussions of Descartes's famed principle we still do not seem to have any way of expressing his alleged insight in terms which would be general and precise enough to enable us to judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it.Thirty years ago Heinrich Scholz wrote that there not only remain many important questions concerning the Cartesian dictum unanswered but that there also remain important questions unasked.' Several illuminating papers later, the situation still seems essentially the same today. - End QUOTESo my semantical doubts about the Cogito are not unjustified. Digging into this theme is beyond the scope of our present project, but it really intrigues me. So, we have fundamental questions about Descartes Cogito, but let's assume it is a valid inference based on true propositions. In the next lecture we shall "judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it." to quote Hintikka.The Discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: I hope I wasn't to difficult today.....:)[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry Herman i was late..i have to read the blog[13:24] herman Bergson: Bu tif you have any remakrks or questions...the floor is yours now ㋡[13:25] oola Neruda: what criteria will you use to make that judgement or examination[13:25] herman Bergson: what judgement oola?[13:25] oola Neruda: about the Descartes assertion[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...most important is to keep in mind that Descartes postulates the existence of two different SUBSTANCES[13:26] Mick Nerido: Superman and Clark Kent are the same but not identical...[13:27] herman Bergson: so ontologically...there exist really two different things...that is the content of our univers[13:27] herman Bergson: the mental and the physical...[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a'[13:27] Doodus Moose: wonders how Descartes would view a room of avatars attending a philosophy lecture [13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is my thought astro[13:27] oola Neruda: what i meant was... some formula of logic... some philosophy that is felt to be truth... the tools for disceting it[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i always wonder that doodus about all of them[13:28] herman Bergson: one moment..[13:28] herman Bergson: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same...can you elaborate on that astro?[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Mick[13:29] Mick Nerido: Two things can be the same but not identical i.e. Superman/ Clark Kent[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i think so even if you where to create two identical objects they would still not be the same as they are both created from independant seperate atoms[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: for true dualism they would have to be made from the same atoms[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Astro..that is also one of the arguments against the identity principle....[13:31] herman Bergson: like two object may have all identical properties...except their location in space....[13:31] Astronomer Somerset: even a mirror image is not identical as it is the reverse[13:31] herman Bergson: However..I have a true SL argument against that![13:31] Bejiita Imako: aaa thats true[13:31] herman Bergson: When I make a prim....[13:32] herman Bergson: and I duplicate that prim at the very same location I have true identity...[13:32] herman Bergson: hmmmmm[13:32] Doodus Moose: except that they have different Keys[13:32] herman Bergson: maybe you would say...no...for when you seperate them they show to have different pixels[13:32] Bejiita Imako: interesting idea[13:32] herman Bergson: Cool Doodus....[13:33] herman Bergson: You win!!!!![13:33] Doodus Moose: it's how the system knows they are different :-)[13:33] herman Bergson: yes the key is different...absolutely![13:33] Astronomer Somerset: no you don't both objects are made from separate zero's and ones you have just two codes the same but they are still separate binary bits[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aa yes they are still 2 different objects even if perfect copies cause simply you have 2 separate ones with2 prim ids or so[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and not just 1[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yaaaaayyyyyyyy![13:33] Bejiita Imako: or dont know[13:34] Mick Nerido: Identicalness is based on more than appearences[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe that got my mind spin a bit[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hhee[13:34] herman Bergson: you even could claim that the two prims differ in memory addresses in my computer[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but one thing i use to say is that even of 2 things are identical they cant be the same cause there are still 2 of them[13:34] Astronomer Somerset: even two identical twins created from the same egg are not identical[13:34] Bejiita Imako: for it to be the same you can have only 1[13:35] herman Bergson: Well I think it now is clear enough that Descartes appeal to the principle of identity is not waterproof ^_^[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm is a bit tricky for sure[13:35] Doodus Moose: "identical" might be true in mathematics, where things on either side of the "equal" sign (could) be the same...[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): even with cells[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:36] druth Vlodovic: wouldn't the spiritual dimension be a property of matter, rather than a duplication of it?[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...that is a next station we will visit...[13:37] herman Bergson: property dualism.....[13:37] herman Bergson: A weaker form of dualism than substance dualism[13:37] druth Vlodovic: 'k[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:37] herman Bergson: The second issue that fascinates me here is the semantics of the "I" in the cogito[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: herman is the statement i think therfore i am truthfully a statement of self aware not existance[13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest ..it was in preperation of this lecture that I really seriously began to think about it...[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it always seemed so rational to me[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: a whale or an ant exist but they may not think the are products of chemical programming[13:40] herman Bergson: well...the title of the article of Hintikka is ... The Cogito: Inference or Performance[13:40] herman Bergson: I just found the article and handt the time to read it[13:40] herman Bergson: except the first few paragraphs :-)[13:41] herman Bergson: Well astro....I think that relates to theproblem of the semantics regarding the "I" in the statement...[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: i always took it to mean a referal of ID[13:42] herman Bergson: Descartes adds almost secretly something to existence....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: which is self aware[13:42] herman Bergson: that I....that awareness...[13:43] herman Bergson: I haven't thought this although yet....[13:43] Mick Nerido: I know I exist...[13:43] Astronomer Somerset: yes it's a statement of self I as in me myself or I[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the awareness was the starting point, onto which he added everything else[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes mick....but that statement PRESUPOSES the I[13:43] herman Bergson: that is what fascinates me here[13:44] Mick Nerido: If I was unconcious I would still exist.[13:44] Astronomer Somerset: we exist in sl but we are not a physical part of the programming we are a user and our avi's are just binary code so do we exist in sl[13:45] herman Bergson: We will get to such arguments in the next lecture Mick....[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm this is also an interesting thing[13:45] herman Bergson: smiles[13:45] Bejiita Imako: take plants for example[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but are they self aware[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they have no brain[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Astro...a fascinating move to focus on the existence of the avatar...:-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: seems just a bunch of individual cells with no consiousness but its still life[13:46] Mick Nerido: I think therefore i am aware of my existance...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: or a tree[13:46] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel[13:46] druth Vlodovic: we "exist" in SL to the extent to which we can affect it, if something existed which could have no effect on anything then it could not be said to exist[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: certain plants do have a basic neural pathway venus flytraps sense their pray by touch[13:47] herman Bergson: Very cryptic Druth....[13:47] Bejiita Imako: sl is a digital extension of ourselves[13:47] Mick Nerido: SL existence is 2 dimentional[13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on......![13:47] Astronomer Somerset: no sl is a medium that allows us to express our true selfs[13:48] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes sort of that[13:48] herman Bergson: the concept of self awareness implies that the agent can say..That is me[13:48] Doodus Moose: astro - if that is what you choose to express[13:48] herman Bergson: only few organisms are able to do that[13:49] herman Bergson: one is the human being...[13:49] herman Bergson: but some animals can show by their bhavior the same expression "That is me"[13:49] Doodus Moose: ahhh, the elephant in the mirror[13:49] herman Bergson: chimps, and elephants , yes[13:49] herman Bergson: dolphins too[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I have to go now[13:50] Bejiita Imako: o cu Gemma[13:50] Mick Nerido: What about Superman? lol[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:50] Doodus Moose: byee Gemma![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: bye gemma[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: byeee Gamma, TC[13:50] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma....[13:50] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...[13:51] herman Bergson: Gemma is right...[13:51] Adriana Jinn: thanks you professor[13:51] herman Bergson: it is about time to come to a conclusion...[13:51] Doodus Moose: i'm sure humans are the only beings yet to demonstrate a value of virtual items :-)[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok one last remark or question...:-)[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: at the very core of this question is a more fundamental question that needs to be understood befor we can truly answer these questions[13:52] druth Vlodovic: cats watching a hockey game do it :)[13:52] herman Bergson: which is Astro?[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: and that is what is thought[13:53] herman Bergson: or more precise perhaps...what is The Mind, Astro?[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: yes[[13:53] herman Bergson: Good conclusion...thnx![13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for the wonderful discussion....[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hmm this was very interesting[13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure[13:54] herman Bergson: Your question will be our main focus for what is to come Astro[13:54] Bejiita Imako: got me something to think about[13:54] Adriana Jinn: very interesting yes[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Adriana Jinn: have to read it quietly after hihihih[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Qwark Allen: awsome hermann[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] herman Bergson: Thx QWark..[13:55] Qwark Allen: i`ll read the begining in the blog[13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo![13:55] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!![13:55] Qwark Allen: ☆*¨¨*<♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''*<♥:*¨¨*☆[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \o/[13:55] Qwark Allen: |[13:55] Qwark Allen: / \[13:55] Qwark Allen: ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!![13:55] herman Bergson: All will be posted in the blog asap....Adriana[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....feeling......transparent.......[13:55] Qwark Allen: ok nice[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....getting .....cloudy.....[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney...[13:55] herman Bergson: RIght in time as usual ^_^[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:56] Rodney Handrick: that time zone thing[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..i have to read the lecture from the beginning[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!! ty class :-) see u nex week![13:57] herman Bergson: next week?[13:57] herman Bergson: ^_^ ?[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: danke auch von mir, next time is tuesday?[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye:-)[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy..Tuesday same time same place[13:57] netty Keng: servus[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all..see you next tuesday[14:00] druth Vlodovic: thanks for the lecture herman, it was interesting[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[14:01] druth Vlodovic: I'm afraid I'm off seeking food[14:01] druth Vlodovic: have fun all[14:01] herman Bergson: you are welcome Astro[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thats ok will you be back later[14:02] herman Bergson: anytime
The general idea we have about ourselves is, that we have a mind and a body. They normally work together. It made Descartes (1596 -1650), a French philosopher, wonder.Mind and body were such different things. For instance, a mind is indivisible, hence indestructible, while a body is infinitely divisible.The mind is free. I can think and experience whatever I want, while the body is determined. It is a series of causal processes. I have to eat, if I don't want to starve.The mind is only "unfree" in the sense that it can not stop thinking, which brought Descartes to his famous "cogito, ergo sum". This typical feature of the mind proved our existence.My mind is directly and privately accessible for me. No one can see my thoughts, but my body is public. Everyone can see me.Thence Descartes had to conclude that the mind had to be something completely different from the body. You even can think of the mind without that body.So he stated that there are two kinds of substances in the world, a mental and a physical. The essence of the mental is "thinking" or consciousness, while the essence of the physical was extension.According to Descartes, the mental and the physical are entirely different realms. One is a realm of things that obey physical laws and occupy space. Another is a realm of ideas, sensations, and feelings that don’t even exist in space. The philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976) referred to this Cartesian Dualism and view of the mind as "the ghost in the machine" and this is exactly the situation.Our physical body is subjected to the laws of nature, while the mind, being not physical, is not. This observation leads to the most important objection to dualism.Descartes himself was well aware of the objection, which was: How can a non-physical substance influence a physical substance. There is not a single law of nature that answers that question.He literally has tried to find the answer by dissecting real human brains. He discovered that in the brain everything comes in pairs, a left and right hemisphere and so on, but at the base of the cortex he found one single little part: the pineal gland.There it was where mind and body touched each other. However, this was a weak answer, because the question was not WHERE mind and body were in a causal relation, but HOW the causal process could take place.This causality on which the laws of physics are based leads to another problem with dualism. This physical causality means that the body is determined. Every process is predictable.But the mind is free. We have a free will. But when everything in the physical world is determined what difference makes a so called free will then?I have direct access to my mind, but when you think of it….it is the only mind I can go to. Are there also other minds in the world? How can I be sure about that?But not only other minds are a problem. If I am locked in my own experiences, my own mind, how can I ever really know anything of the external world? In that way we end up with Skepticism.And when I stop thinking, do I stop to exist then too? When I am unconscious or asleep, what is my condition then?And then there is the "I" in the "I think, therefore I exist". Where did Descartes find that "I"? What is it? Where does it come from.There have been written complete libraries about all these questions for Dualism and dualism had no answer. How to proof that the mental and the physical are two separate realms, which really exist and where the laws of physics only apply to one of these realms?In other words, there is hardly any scientist nowadays who believes that the mind is some kind of exclusive substance next to physical substance.The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: but there is no explanation what it is then[13:26] Mick Nerido: Descartes thought the soul resided in the pineal gland...[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: is there?[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think they are finding so many connections in the mental ability to control parts of the body[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): using for people who have lost limbs etc[13:27] herman Bergson: explanation for what Ciska?[13:27] Doodus Moose: indeed, MIT has controllers where people can move things by thinking[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: for what we called mind up to now[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:27] herman Bergson: oh yes..there is...:-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:27] herman Bergson: but we havent yet come to that...[13:27] Bejiita Imako: have seen such things[13:28] herman Bergson: it is the whole reason of this project :-)[13:28] Bejiita Imako: kind of interesting[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: so at the moment you want us to accept that there is something else you are going to explain later on - right?[13:28] herman Bergson: No Mick...the soul was not in the pineal gland according to Descartes[13:29] herman Bergson: of course Ciska..[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: ok[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: I'll wait for the alternative then ;)[13:29] herman Bergson smiles[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:30] herman Bergson: I don't give all my treasures away that easily Ciska...[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: well you want me to give something up[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: so i have to get something for it[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: thats economics ;))[13:30] herman Bergson: But ..main point today is...substance duality[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: (teasing of course)[13:30] Mick Nerido: The world is so filled with opposites light and dark, male and female, mind and body that leads to dualism[13:31] Doodus Moose: the nature of light itself, lends to dualism[13:31] herman Bergson: The idea that the mind is another kind of substance than molecules[13:31] Mick Nerido: Yes Doodus[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: i think its just a matter of language... buddhism for example speaks of bodymind[13:31] herman Bergson: waves and particles..isnt it Doodus[13:32] Doodus Moose: correct[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yea[13:32] Bejiita Imako: s[13:32] herman Bergson: but that is just a technical issue, I would say[13:33] Doodus Moose: again, how would Descartes describe the situation where a person could move a mouse cursor with some equipment attached to his head?[13:33] herman Bergson: you cant compare that to the mind - body relation, I would say[13:33] Mick Nerido: Matter may not be what it seem with so much unknown in the universe ie. dark matter and dark energy[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): he would faint[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma![13:34] herman Bergson: Well...the question ..."What is matter" is a complete different story Mick...[13:34] herman Bergson: It has no effect on our problem today, I think[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: mh... if we consist of matter and matter is in our brain... and our mind is our brain[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: matter matters.[13:35] Ciska Riverstone whispers: no?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...[13:36] Bejiita Imako: well matter study is a fav hobby for me[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:36] herman Bergson: we have to assume that what we call the mind is just a feature of the brain..[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and antimatter for that part as well[13:36] Flo (flora.jewell) is now known as Flora Jewell.[13:37] Mick Nerido: And quantum physics is an issue also[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: yes Mick think so too[13:37] herman Bergson: well..only to some extend Mick...[13:37] Mick Nerido: Just plating devils advocate[13:37] herman Bergson: it doesn't change the fact that the mind is a feature of the brain[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: no not at all[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: it asks how[13:38] herman Bergson: it may be involved in the discussion about free will[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): complex[13:38] herman Bergson: We will get to that certainly[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: very, Gemma[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....[13:39] herman Bergson: I sometimes don't know where to begin....[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: can imagine that[13:39] Bejiita Imako: mm[13:39] herman Bergson: .[13:39] Bejiita Imako: aaa puh new keyboard works again[13:39] herman Bergson: there are so many issues , all related to each other[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hit num lock on my new mini keyboard, no wonder it started behaving strang[13:39] herman Bergson: But I'll do my best ^_^[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :_)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: complex as the linkings in the brain ;)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: and we appreciate that ![13:40] herman Bergson: Well..yet this is an important issue..dualism...[13:40] herman Bergson: it means...if we reject it as an explanation of the mind...[13:41] herman Bergson: then there is not such a thing as a material body and an immaterial mind[13:41] Jerome Ronzales: is it right to say that Dualism is a Absolutism?[13:41] herman Bergson: it also means...and that was what Descartes hoped to save...there is no immaterial soul[13:42] herman Bergson: no Jerome..makes little sense..I am sorry[13:42] Mick Nerido: And yet there is an immaterial quality to the mind[13:42] Jerome Ronzales: ok[13:43] herman Bergson: I will disagree with you Mick.. :-)[13:43] herman Bergson: that sounds like property dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: that means...[13:43] herman Bergson: ok...no mind substance...[13:43] herman Bergson: but the mind is a property ,,a special property of the brain[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: Mick - maybe we see it like that cause we see that matter reacts to the same things in the same way wether decisions seem not to[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not the brain itself..but a special "mind" property[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can you locate the mind property?[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Beertje...that has taken a while...[13:45] herman Bergson: the egyptians didn't give a dime for the brain...[13:45] herman Bergson: their Pharaos were burried without a brain[13:45] Mick Nerido: We can see the brain at work with brain scans[13:45] herman Bergson: The Greek thought it was located in the chest or abdomen..:-)[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes but we still do not know why it fires which neuron - as far as i know mick[13:46] herman Bergson: In the Middle Ages they began to believe that the mind was in the head[13:47] herman Bergson: No. I wouldn't say so Ciska...[13:47] herman Bergson: We really know where what functions are located where in the brain[13:48] herman Bergson: Look at the charts on the wall for instance[13:48] herman Bergson: That doesn't mean we understand the brain as such...:-)[13:49] herman Bergson: But we have soem insight[13:49] Doodus Moose: we might all use the same parts to walk, but what is "programmed" in the reasoning section is somewhat individual[13:49] Mick Nerido: There is global theory and another that says specific areas do specific functions[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: i meant the individual thing - yes doodus[13:51] herman Bergson: OK...let's conclude that we are not inclined to accept substance dualism as an option to explain the mind[13:51] herman Bergson: at least...that is MY point of view[13:51] Doodus Moose: :-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] herman Bergson: Deal Bejiita ^_^[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:52] Mick Nerido: Ok, but was Spinosa's mind better than Descartes? ")[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:52] Bejiita Imako: its for sure an interesting topic[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): different maybe[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: definitivly gemma[13:52] herman Bergson: better means that you have criteria to test the difference[13:53] herman Bergson: wehat are they Mick?[13:54] Mick Nerido: They both lived in Holland, most of their lives also...funny[13:54] herman Bergson smiles[13:55] herman Bergson: Both didnt wear wooden shoes or loved tulips :-)[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha![13:55] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahahahahaha[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: hahahahahaaaa[13:55] herman Bergson: so I guess they were equal partners in this matter[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: *** HOHOHO THAT IS A GOOD ONE !!! ***[13:55] Mick Nerido: They found a friendly intellectual community I would guess[13:56] herman Bergson: Oh yes..[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:56] herman Bergson: But the fact that the one had another idea than the other doesnt make him bette or worse..[13:57] herman Bergson: scientifically you could ask the question....who was closer to how things really are[13:57] herman Bergson: but in those days they only had their own brain....[13:57] herman Bergson: their imagination..[13:58] Mick Nerido: Good point herman[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:58] herman Bergson: like even the Greeks like Democritus, when I am not mistaken, imagened that the world was a collection of atoms[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i should make it thursday[13:58] herman Bergson: Or Leibniz thought it were monads[13:59] herman Bergson: Glad you were back again Gemma..missed you[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): had a good time away tho[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hehehe[13:59] herman Bergson: Sure :-)[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: :) great gemma[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): saw lots of birds[14:00] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 22 species of warbler[14:00] Doodus Moose: :-0[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa ok[14:00] Bejiita Imako: nice[14:00] Mick Nerido: Where?[14:01] herman Bergson: Well..I gues it is time to dismiss class then...[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ah[14:01] herman Bergson: Now that Gemma is gone ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: again very interesting[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gave me some more to think about ㋡[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: very interesting - thank you herman[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you Bejiita[14:01] Doodus Moose: Thanks, Professor :-)[14:01] Mick Nerido: Bye, thanks[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: bye Mick[14:01] Bejiita Imako: tine to head on I guess[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[14:02] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was very interesting again[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye all[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hugs[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye Bejiita[14:02] Doodus Moose: ....surrounded by .......particles......[14:02] Bilthor Esharham: Very interesting...very thanks professor......)))[14:02] Jerome Ronzales: bye´[14:02] herman Bergson: Tahnk you Bilthor[14:02] herman Bergson: Thank[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye professor[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye all~[14:03] Bilthor Esharham: bye bye....Auf Wiedersehen[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Jerome[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: cya next time~
