382: The Mystery of the Brain concluded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



The Discussion

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

378: Consciousness and Intentionality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

374: Cosciousness and Qualitativity

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

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

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

We all know that there is a qualitative difference - the how it feels… - between tasting something delicious, or listening to a beautiful piece of music. These experiences don't feel the same.

There is a funny linguistic phenomenon related to this feature of consciousness. Sometimes we describe experiences with the qualities of other experiences.

A sunrise that feels like a concerto of Vivaldi or a whisky in which you smell the robustness of the oak barrels it was kept in for decades. The rest I leave to the poets…..

When you listen to Searle you immediately feel, that we hit a sensitive nerve in the contemporary debate on consciousness.

Searle says: "Some philosophers describe this feature of consciousness with the word qualia, and they say there is a special problem of quaila."

It has to do with the materialist view and the limits of science. In fact the line of thought here is exciting. The basic problem is perfectly formulated by C.D Broad (1925).

A mathematical and chemical genius endowed with unlimited mathematical skills and gifted with the further power of perceiving the microscopic structure of atoms can not predict one specific feature of ammonia, namely its smell:

"He would know exactly what the microscopic structure of ammonia must be; but he would be totally unable to predict that a substance with this structure must smell as ammonia does when it gets into the human nose.

The utmost that he could predict on this subject would be that certain changes would take place in the mucous membrane, the olfactory nerves and so on.

But he could not possibly know that theses changes would be accompanied by the appearance of a smell in general or of the peculiar smell of ammonia in particular, unless someone told him so or he had smelled it for himself."

This issue was repeated by Thomas Nagel in 1974 in his famous article in Philosophical Review “What is it like to be a bat?”
He argues that some facts can only be captured ‘from a subjective perspective’.
He uses his famous example of bats to illustrate the point: Even if we knew everything there is to know ‘from an objective perspective’ about a bat's sonar system,
certain factual questions concerning bats would remain unanswered. We still would not know ‘what it is like’ to perceive a given object with a bat's sonar system.
When your dog or cat looks at you, while you talk to the animal, did you never had that desire to know what your pet actually sees.
Never had that wish to be a bird and see the world through birds eyes. However, we only know how eyes work and how sensory circuits in the brain respond to the input.
Thus the big philosophical question is: what is the ontological status of these quail. Searle is quite clear about this:
"I am reluctant to adopt this usage, because it seems to imply that there are two separate problems, the problem of consciousness and the problem of qualia.
But as I understand these terms, "qualia" is just a plural name for conscious states. Because "consciousness" and "qualia" are coextensive, there seems no point in introducing a special term."
Last word for the other party. The quote of D.C. Board has led to an ongoing debate know as "the knowledge argument", which means, that a scientist may know a lot but not everything and for a specific reason.
The knowledge argument aims to establish that conscious experience involves NON-PHYSICAL properties.

It rests on the idea that someone who has complete physical knowledge about another conscious being might yet lack knowledge about how it feels to have the experiences of that being.

Do you see the implication? Dualism is back on the stage fighting materialism or as it it also called physicalism.


The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant Herman!
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: that was famous
[13:25] Farv Hallison: Thank you, herman.
[13:25] herman Bergson: thank you Lizzy ^_^
[13:25] Agnos (agnos): Thank you
[13:26] Mick Nerido: no two people see the world exactly the same because their senses are different so their awarness is different
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Mick…
[13:26] herman Bergson: Let me say is in common language, what philosophers seems to get upset about so much
[13:27] Farv Hallison: yes, I am keenly aware of Beertje's gown from the inside, but I don't know how she feels about here gown.
[13:27] herman Bergson: waits for other responses
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: and if we could catch these differences, Mick spoke about, we would not be able to "feel" them.. onl to describe
[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: we can alway see only a part and never the whole
[13:28] Mick Nerido: we can agree a color is red or green but what the color looks like to me may be differnent for each of us
[13:28] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i feel very good about my gown Farv..i made it this day and i'm proud of it
[13:28] herman Bergson: very true Mick....
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: that means, we will stay caught in our own cognition
[13:28] herman Bergson: the philosophical issue here is the "I"
[13:29] herman Bergson: not what Farv sees under Beertjes skirt
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i wish i could see sometimes through eyes of someone else
[13:29] herman Bergson: `YES Beertje that's the whole point...!
[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: behave you Farv!
[13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL I have really tried to avoid the topic of Farv and the gown :-)
[13:29] Mick Nerido: consciouness is a subject point of view taken to an extreme
[13:30] herman Bergson: Very good Misty...
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: but, if you do so, you would have to be yourself on the other hand, to recognize the differences
[13:30] herman Bergson: Leave it to the professor..lol
[13:30] herman Bergson: Ahh Sybyle...yes ...
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i see my world in 2D..it would be exiting to see it in 3D
[13:31] herman Bergson: But just to know what your whatever sees....
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: could it be possible.. if I got someones point of view to differ from my own completely?
[13:32] herman Bergson: even if we technologically succeeded in implanting all kinds of electrodes in the brain of my cat...
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: to be able to see what is mine and what is not?
[13:32] Mick Nerido: when you read a good novel one can come close to being inside anothers conciousness
[13:32] herman Bergson: and i would see on a monitor what it sees...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: and would it be enough to have her view? wouldn't it be necessary to have her feelings and so on too?
[13:33] herman Bergson: I only see what my technology has created to see...not what my cat sees
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: Events can change how we view the world. A lady who was blind all her life got sight.. She didn't understand perspective, so had to relearn her world so not to run into things. So while what we perceive today, can be different tomorrow.
[13:33] herman Bergson: maybe it is the same maybe not...I'll never know
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Misty...
[13:34] herman Bergson: it isn't such a blessing to make the blind see or the deaf hear....
[13:35] Farv Hallison: I was blind to Beertje's underwear, but now thanks to a wardrobe malfunction, I see the world from a whole new perspective.
[13:36] Mick Nerido: that's called insight, Farv
[13:36] herman Bergson: Farv.....lol...
[13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: "duct taping" Farv hands before I get into trouble.. So how someone perceives something can effect our points of view :)
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): blushes..
[13:37] herman Bergson: If there arent any questions or remark...
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: I was thinking what a lovely gown it is and wondering if it were new...and now...
[13:37] herman Bergson: unless about Beertjes underwear perhaps???
[13:37] Richard (richard.fonda) is Offline
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: what a funny lesson today:))
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok...we have left the realm of philosophy here...
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think Beertjes gets the A in class today for being such a good sport !!!
[13:38] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation...
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yay!!!my first A in years..
[13:38] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....

373: Consciousness defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

371: The Brain and a new approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have a choice between dualism and materialism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



The Discussion

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