skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Before digging into Dualism I have to deal with a question that came up in the discussion after my previous lecture. It boiled down to the question how a subjective mind / consciousness can obtain objective knowledge about the mind, because, isn't that a subjective something?let me begin with quoting John Searle: "Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity.Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objectivescience of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms."This may sound a bit complicated and I'll not explain it all in detail, but what is important in this matter is our common way of thinking in the dichotomy objective - subjective.Many philosophers and scientists think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness. For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.This is not correct and I'll show you why. As knowledge science is objective indeed. That means, a scientist can find the truth of a statement, which is independent of the observer."Herman Bergson is in RL 1.78m tall" and "Herman Bergson is a good philosopher". The first statement is objective knowledge. Anyone can put it to the test and proof the correctness.The second statement is subjective. There is no way of settling the truth or falsehood of it. I hope, you find at least one person who'd like to say "yes, that is true". Others may have reasons to say "That statement is false."We may call this epistemic objectivity and epistemic subjectivity, but we have to make another subjective - objective distinction.Pains and tickles, for example, have a subjective mode of existence. Nobody else can feel my headache, but me myself.But mountains, cars and houses have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence doesn't depend on any consciousness.Because this is about things and how they exist, we can call it the distinction between ontological objectivity and ontological subjectivity.Thence you can conclude, that it is very well possible to have objective knowledge (the epistemic level) of what exists only as my subjective mental states (the ontological level).Or to say it in Searle words:"There is no reason whatever why we cannot have an objective science of pain, even though pains only exist when they are felt by conscious agents. The ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain." In other words, science is by definition objective in the epistemological sense and consciousness is by definition subjective in the ontological sense and for that reason it is completely normal that there is scientific knowledge possible about consciousness.What I wanted to make clear is, that in the debate we must keep a sharp eye on the questions: "Is this statement objective / subjective knowledge?"and "is the existence of this fact depending on consciousness or independent of consciousness". This is the distinction between epistemic and ontological objectivity / subjectivity.I am sorry I had to put you through this rather technical philosophical stuff, but it is an important argument regarding possibility of a the science of consciousness.The Discussion[13:27] herman Bergson: this much about the ontological and epistemological objectivity...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: my skin has also epistemic history...but..it doesnt tell me..[13:28] herman Bergson: A bit philosophical hitech maybe...:-)[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and my bones..dont talk to me about their ontologic background also[13:28] Kyra Neutron: :O)[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..sure would be interesting to talk about your skin..later:9[13:28] Kyra Neutron: i just wanted to ask...[13:28] herman Bergson: of course not Kyra...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: who defines[13:28] Kyra Neutron: objective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and[13:28] Kyra Neutron: subjective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:29] herman Bergson: Because these are features of consciousness...and your bones as such aren't conscious[13:29] herman Bergson: Who defines objective and subjective...[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...quite simple...we do...not my cat for instance...[13:30] herman Bergson: It is rules we define to tell what is knowledge and what is not[13:30] Kyra Neutron: not knowledge[13:30] Kyra Neutron: object and subject..[13:30] herman Bergson waves at Elia[13:30] Elia Scribe: Hi Herman!![13:30] Kyra Neutron: is defined..by.."you"[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what is you?[13:31] herman Bergson: no no...not subject and object....has nothing to do with this[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you are an subjective thing[13:31] herman Bergson: no no....[13:31] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:31] herman Bergson: these definitions are intersubjective...[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we see through eyes..are[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we hear[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we can think[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you ..me..him..[13:32] Kyra Neutron: are totally subjective[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she is right in one way but[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemological objective means that any one can establish the truth or falsity of a statement[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she ignores the fact that she says "we"[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I see, hear, the same - now it is objective[13:32] Kyra Neutron: throws the shoe at baldur...[13:32] Kyra Neutron: i has to say it otherwise..you don't listen[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra...[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sticks out tongue[13:33] Mick Nerido: Without an observer is an event real?[13:33] herman Bergson: ontologically is subjective all what I hear you say ....MY hearing only....[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: objective is a result of common agreement -for example of the meaning of a word ..that is -becomes independent of the individual idea[13:33] herman Bergson: But the meaning of what you say...the epistemological content is NOT subjective...[13:34] Kyra Neutron: how can you define it?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: you are "subjective" ?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:34] herman Bergson: I can repeat to someone else literally what you said and ask..is that true or false..[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: smile..we are social and communication dependent animals:9[13:35] Kyra Neutron: damit..you cant even prove that you exist :/[13:35] herman Bergson: If I hear you say "I have seen a martian"...ontologically it is subjective...[13:35] Doodus Moose: is just glad he's not being tested on this :-)[13:35] Kyra Neutron: or we...[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: if i pinch your ass you know you exist[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I can bite you and then you feel that I exist[13:35] Kyra Neutron: if i have "the" ass...[13:35] herman Bergson: But epistemologically I can put it to the test...[13:35] Evie1: glad it was not punch[13:36] Kyra Neutron: no..that only proves..i am dreaming all of "you"[13:36] Kyra Neutron: all the universe[13:36] herman Bergson: I can ask you to show me evidence...which is independent of the observer...[13:36] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:36] Kyra Neutron: and ...oh my...god gene...?[13:36] Kyra Neutron: nooooooo[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: smile ok if you are just immaterial you won't feelyour ass pinched..[13:36] Kyra Neutron: it is the god itself ![13:36] Kyra Neutron: haha ok ok..sorry herman[13:37] herman Bergson: Baldur..leave her ass alone..not in my class ! :-)[13:37] Mick Nerido: Her point of view is entirely subjective....nothing exists if Kyra doesn't[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: sorry but she does have a NICE ONE:9[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll get to that...sollipsime[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes...and as all of you...[13:37] herman Bergson: a logic consequence of the Cartesian view[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nothing exist..if you don't…[13:38] Kyra Neutron: so..next time..telling about "objective" remember it ;9[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: i thought todays class was about the "i"?[13:38] herman Bergson: nothing exist..if you don't…..this statement Kyra...[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry i must go[13:38] Elia Scribe: Kyra, this is at least in part an answer to your question: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Werner Karl Heisenberg[13:38] Mick Nerido: I think the world was here before me and will be here after I am gone[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty! herman & class - see u soon :-)[13:38] Kyra Neutron: mick[13:39] herman Bergson: IS just epistemic...not ontological...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: have you seen..world[13:39] Kyra Neutron: before "you"[13:39] Kyra Neutron: me didnt[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and i wont see world after me[13:39] Kyra Neutron: so..i am not flattering myself..to be part of the big clock...[13:40] herman Bergson: this is all about your subjective knowledge Kyra...[13:40] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[13:40] Kyra Neutron: as much as all of us[13:40] Kyra Neutron: has[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the scientists[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the ones that try to "wolf"[13:40] herman Bergson: that doesnt have any effect on scientific knowledge of reality[13:40] Kyra Neutron: till you connect[13:40] Kyra Neutron: you are subjectvie[13:40] Mick Nerido: I see objective evidence of a previous existence of the world before I was here, History[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: but you agree you are part of something?[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: objectively?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: it is not my agree[13:41] Kyra Neutron: baldur..[13:41] Kyra Neutron: or knowledge[13:41] herman Bergson: sollipsime isnt refutable logically...[13:42] herman Bergson: even philosophically a waste of time[13:42] Kyra Neutron: oks herman[13:42] Kyra Neutron: but what you try to say[13:42] herman Bergson: betrand Russell once received a letter from a highly gifted mathematician....She wrote..I am a solipsist now...I wonder why you aren't[13:42] Kyra Neutron: or learn[13:42] Kyra Neutron: is already there[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: you don't agree..not bee part of something.. so how come you can participate in a discussion[13:42] Kyra Neutron: ..........[13:43] Kyra Neutron: he also had given a high blessing for "being nothing"[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: smile what is there is undergoing eternal change..[13:43] herman Bergson: Not sure what you mean Kyra....[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hmm[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hiçliğin türküsü[13:44] herman Bergson: Your point in one statement...regarding objective and subjective[13:44] Kyra Neutron: idk the english translation of it[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: right..[13:44] Kyra Neutron: opening for one of his statements :)[13:44] herman Bergson: whose statements?[13:44] Kyra Neutron: porphyre eglantine[13:44] herman Bergson: dont know the man/woman[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it is called ( russells book )[13:45] Mick Nerido: "Biocenterism" agrees with Kyra[13:45] Elia Scribe: The solipsist would seem to be lonely.[13:45] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): "song of nothingness"[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..for the rest of the group..can we let[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: herman finish his class and then we talk?[13:46] Kyra Neutron: the existentialist's crisis[13:46] Kyra Neutron: or sth like that..[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..here we deal with real arguments only..not with references to books or authors....[13:46] Kyra Neutron: yes..song of nothingness[13:46] Kyra Neutron: ty hakan..[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yw[13:46] Kyra Neutron: so the example..is not fitting[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): or "ballad of nonexixtence"[13:46] herman Bergson: If we would do that we also could refer to the bible any time[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: or i shall talk about kafka for the next half hour[13:47] Kyra Neutron: hahaha[13:47] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:47] Kyra Neutron: kafka[13:47] Kyra Neutron: and you has blessed time without ky[13:47] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:47] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yep[13:47] herman Bergson: Not acceptable in a philosophical debate...[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: SMILE TY KYR[13:47] herman Bergson: I want arguments....[13:47] herman Bergson: Logical[13:48] herman Bergson: verifiable[13:48] Elia Scribe: Logical = Linguistic?[13:48] herman Bergson: and that is all[13:48] herman Bergson: no ELia..[13:48] Kyra Neutron: herman..this is my "logic"[13:48] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:48] herman Bergson: Just pure and simple logic..[13:49] herman Bergson: that something either true of false[13:49] herman Bergson: for instance[13:49] Kyra Neutron: lauging ...hidden :)[13:49] Elia Scribe: Pure and simple logic seems an ideal, perhaps not existent?[13:49] Kyra Neutron: oks...true or false[13:49] Elia Scribe: Ahh.[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is like binary ...[13:49] herman Bergson: oh yes..you live by it every day elia..[13:49] Kyra Neutron: but..now we have this ;[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is true + and+ false[13:50] Elia Scribe: In what sense do you mean that Herman?[13:50] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): maybe for me it is true and for you it is false[13:50] Evie1: sorry rl calls bye all[13:50] herman Bergson: ok kyra...you go outside..and you say..look it is raining and not raining at the same time[13:50] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:51] herman Bergson: Just as I said Elia...[13:51] Kyra Neutron: can you define where i am ?[13:51] Kyra Neutron: i simply cant...[13:51] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): here in sl[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: KYRA..please ..i'm sure herman will be ready to dicuss those questions after class on in the diswcussion for hours.. but think of the others..simple minded people like me..who want to get basics..[13:51] herman Bergson: when you go outside and you observe that is is not raining you will not say it is raining[13:51] Kyra Neutron: ok ok ....[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! guys I have to go rl stuff[13:52] herman Bergson: well Baldur..that basics of today are these[13:52] Elia Scribe: Well there is interaction with the world. Is this a part of the logic I do every day?[13:52] herman Bergson: consciousness is a subjective matter....[13:52] Kyra Neutron: yes....ty at last![13:52] herman Bergson: there is only your conscious....[13:53] herman Bergson: question is...[13:53] herman Bergson: tho it is a subjective matter...[13:53] Kyra Neutron: yes you can[13:53] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you can define what consciousness is: and then it is objective[13:53] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of your subjective consciousness[13:53] Kyra Neutron: my answer was for herman..[13:53] herman Bergson: We leave that out for the moment Siggi…plaza[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: if you agree that all organic life is an individal entity..[13:54] Kyra Neutron: no[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: makes may be easier to understand[13:54] herman Bergson: your subjective conscious is subjective in an ontological sense...[13:55] herman Bergson: but when you smash your thumb with a hammer I can ask you...does it hurt???[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you will say ..yes...[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: kyra might love it[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:55] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: she feels she exists:)[13:55] herman Bergson: this means...epistemically...as knowledge I can verify the statement..Baldur's thumb hurt...[13:56] herman Bergson: I gather evidence...[13:56] herman Bergson: You are screaming....[13:56] Kyra Neutron: 100% right baldur[13:56] herman Bergson: I could have a brainscan...showing C fibres firing...[13:56] herman Bergson: I can see the blood...[13:56] herman Bergson: and so on....[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: sure Kyra bleeds?[13:57] Kyra Neutron: periodicly yes[13:57] herman Bergson: I have soon hundreds of cases like that...and all said….revealing their subjecive consciousness with the words.....IT HURTS![13:57] Kyra Neutron: so i needs hammer[13:57] Kyra Neutron: but as part of...no[13:57] herman Bergson: I cant feel the pain....but I CAN have objective knowledge about it....[13:57] Kyra Neutron: (lag)[13:58] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:58] herman Bergson: therefore I give you morphine :-)[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: WELL IF I OBSERVE IT IT WOULD bew a subjectiv e observation.. smile which doenbs't hurt me[13:58] Kyra Neutron: you cant have objective knowledge[13:58] Kyra Neutron: never ever ever[13:58] Kyra Neutron: "you"[13:58] Kyra Neutron: is subjective[13:58] herman Bergson: oh yes Kyra....[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: right kyra..but you share your emotion with others..so they won't do it again..[13:58] Kyra Neutron: it is your chemical compound[13:59] Mick Nerido: If a tree falls and no one hears it did it make a sound?[13:59] herman Bergson: When I have a big rock....and I see it fall on you..you will be crushed....[13:59] Kyra Neutron: your electric connections[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: which means ..your brain is in connection with your ewnvironment[13:59] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:59] Kyra Neutron: coz..you raised by that knowledge[13:59] Kyra Neutron: you say you will be crushed[13:59] Kyra Neutron: so my mother has raised by that knowledge[13:59] herman Bergson: the observations is completely independent of my consciousness...[13:59] herman Bergson: Every person will find that splash of blood and bones under that rock[14:00] Kyra Neutron: and my grandson..will be..[14:00] Kyra Neutron: if it doesnt..raised by that[14:00] Kyra Neutron: how dare you can say..it will be crushed?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will lift it[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will divide it into small pieces[14:00] Kyra Neutron: there wont be any rock at all[14:00] Kyra Neutron: or[14:00] Elia Scribe: Herman, isn't this practical truth? What the Buddhists call conventional reality?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: belive is everything[14:01] Mick Nerido: I must leave, thanks for the spirited discussion[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: kyra.. human evlution is lagregely dependent on the communication possibilities..which include abstacts..l[14:01] Kyra Neutron: o.O,[14:01] herman Bergson: I agree Mick…this discussion can go on for ages :-)[14:01] Kyra Neutron: mick pls ..i am sorry for opening my frog mouth .7[14:01] herman Bergson: No ..you have the right to do that Kyra..like everyone here[14:02] Elia Scribe: Behind that AV you are a frog?[14:02] Doodus Moose: i'm heading for the wine cellar right after this....[14:02] herman Bergson: But your ideas about that falling rock are questionable[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): good night to all[14:02] Kyra Neutron: oh my...save some for us?[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..herman told us fromnthe beginning that philosophy is allaboitu asking questions[14:03] Kyra Neutron: baldur[14:03] herman Bergson: Good idea Doodus....I share that with you in an objective way:-)[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it may be...[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: smile finding the right questions is the quest:9[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it is not only the questions[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: not finding the answers :9[14:03] herman Bergson: Finding the wine cellar is now our next objective[14:04] herman Bergson: So..may I thank you all for this vivd debate....[14:04] herman Bergson: Thank you Kyra…we're not done yet ...give it time[14:04] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[14:04] Kyra Neutron: ty[14:04] Kyra Neutron: for[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
Two weeks in a row my newspaper pays a lot of attention to the subject that concerns us here: the brain. And now it is the opposition talking.The opposition is represented by long articles and interviews with professors in psychology and psychiatry. The critics are so important for our discourse, that I interrupt our line of thought about the evolutionary history and biology of emotes.You have to hear this. It will give you arguments to think about and it reveals a big philosophical problem, that we'll discuss in the near future. Maybe at the end of this lecture you know what that philosophical problem is. If not I'll tell you.-quotePeople have a history of giving meaning, of motives, desires and emotions. Inside this you find the main explanations for mental processes. And you' won't find them in the brain.Jan Derksen, Professor of clinical psychology at the University of Niimegen.- end quoteThe book "We are our brain" by Dick Swaab, the internationally renowned neuroscientist, published in March 2010, has sold more than 100.000 copies in the Netherlands! In his book he argues that all human behavior is enshrined in the brain.-quote ( Frank Koerselman)The criticism of Dick Swaab is that he takes it too far, and I agree with that. When Swaab says: everything is in the brain, he isn't wrong, for without a brain we wouldn't exist. But then, can you explain everything with this?I don't think so. It can be quite useful to look inside the brain, but a statement like "Everything is enshrined in the brain" is saying something like "Every painting consists of paint."Then you miss the mood and emotion, which the painting evokes. And then of course you miss the experience. Explaining and experiencing often don't get along to well.-end quoteThese are the words Frank Koerselman, professor of psychiatry and psychotherapy at the University of Utrecht. in an interview covering two pages of my newspaper.And then a long article of the Herman M. van Praag, retired professor of psychiatry at the Universities of Groningen, Utrecht, Maastricht and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. (In the meantime you also learn a little about Dutch topography:-)-quoteWhat do I mean with "mind". The person,who I am or at least think I am. My thinking, my emotional life, my religious, aesthetic and affective needs, my expectations, my disappointments, my loves, my habits. An enumerations which isn't more than an anthology.(…) Suppose, we would know the neural substrate of aesthetic experiences in full detail, what would it teach us about the origin of those experiences, about the nature of these experiences, about our aesthetic preferences and inter-individual differences?(…) What does the knowledge of the brain teach us about our hope, our expectations, our disappointments, our grief, happiness, shame, feelings of love, our moral sense?The answer is: little to nothing. The mind is indeed dependent on a functioning brain, but can not be analyzed, studied, appreciated through the brain . The mind is a world unto itself. It is in many ways an independently operating product of the brain.(…) We exist due to our brain. We are not our brain. We are much more than our brain. We are also a MIND. Everyone of us has, with the help of our brain, built a world far away from the material and mechanistic one. That is done in a way that transcends the brain- end quoteOne thing is clear. We are marching along in the front rows of the most important philosophical debate of today. Even newspapers spend pages on the subject.But what to do with all this criticism with respect to our project? Are we on the wrong track? No. Are these critics missing the point? No. On the contrary.However, to judge the criticism properly we have to be well aware of the conceptual difference between THE mind and MY mind. All this criticism points at the SUBJECTIVE mind, my mind, your personal mind.Or formulated in other words, they all point at subjective consciousness. It is one thing, that the brain can generate consciousness. We even can scientifically proof that someone is conscious (although there seem to be exceptions in certain cases of coma).But what we can not scientifically explain is SUBJECTIVE consciousness. When I see a dog and you see the same dog, are our mental states identical? Can't be because I can say seeing that dog is MY experience and in that sense it differs from yours.Subjective consciousness is an extremely difficult philosophical nut to crack. Later we'll get to that subject. The quoted critics refer to that problem, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that we therefore should give up our quest into the Mystery of the Brain.The next lecture will be March 15. I will be gone for a short Spring vacation or actually to escape the Carneval events and happenings, which disrupt normal live for the coming week in the region I live.If you get bored I can give you a subject that is closely related with what I presented today: neural determinism. Just start a google on that and you're in the middle of an ongoing debate.The Discussion[13:27] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:27] Aristotle von Doobie: :)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:28] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:28] herman Bergson: Hello Clerisse ^_^[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hi Clerisse[13:28] Mick Nerido: thanks, Is Neural determinism the same as Biocenterism?[13:28] Clerisse Beeswing: hello professor[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie: Of course, being the center of the universe, my mind it the ultimate in subjectivity, it is the Captain Kirk where my brain is Mr Spock[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie: hello Clerisse[13:29] herman Bergson: Not sure Mick..don't know that term[13:29] herman Bergson: Should I beam you up, Aristotle?[13:30] Mick Nerido: A theory that our minds create the universe not the other way around.[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie: LOL, no that is Scottie[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:30] herman Bergson: That is called Idealism Mick.....[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie: perhaps he is represents the body[13:30] herman Bergson: the idea that what is real is just our mind[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie: I agree Herman and based on our specific emperical data gathering, that may be very well be different[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie: Ill Get u My Pretty And Your Little Dog To[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha[13:31] Mick Nerido: It ties into the subatomic theory in Physics[13:31] Merel Heron: it is a lot you give us to think about professor[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie: Ill Get u My Pretty And Your Little Dog To[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie: Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie: oooop[s a gesture gone amok'[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Merel....I know..:-)[13:32] Merel Heron: but it is so interesting[13:33] Merel Heron: i started on the book from Dick Swaab about the brain[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh nice...a good companion to these lectures[13:34] Merel Heron: yes that is what i thought too[13:34] herman Bergson: The lectures follow his basic ideas...[13:35] herman Bergson: But I started this project before his book was published[13:35] herman Bergson: He just thinks the same way as I do :-)[13:35] Merel Heron: mmmm yes and like you say it isn't only the brain but also the connection to our whole being[13:35] Qwark Allen: do you ever talk personally with him?[13:35] Clerisse Beeswing: ahh two minds that think alike..pretty cool[13:36] herman Bergson: No Qwark .....[13:36] herman Bergson: I have seen him in an interview on TV...[13:36] Qwark Allen: ok[13:36] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:36] herman Bergson: His book is pretty upsetting for some people[13:37] :: Beertje ::: in what way?[13:37] Qwark Allen: you should send him a mail then[13:37] Qwark Allen: should be a interesting exchange of ideas[13:37] herman Bergson: Well Beertje....if everything is just a product of the brain..God is too....[13:37] herman Bergson: and here we go....^_^[13:37] Merel Heron: mmm i think so far it is very clear the way he write about the brain[13:37] :: Beertje ::: maybe he is right[13:38] herman Bergson: Oh in my opinion he is quite right Beertje[13:38] Clerisse Beeswing: ahh is he a atheist[13:38] herman Bergson: no...not an atheist...[13:38] Clerisse Beeswing: sorry my spelling is crappy[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie: if the brain produces the mind, where did it put it?[13:38] herman Bergson: Just someone who is puzlled by ideas other people have[13:39] herman Bergson: Ahhhh Aristotle.....[13:39] Mick Nerido: The Universe could be a big brain...[13:39] Qwark Allen: the mind it`s the electricity that powers the brain[13:39] herman Bergson: That is a good remark....[13:39] Qwark Allen: maybe without mind, there is no brain[13:39] herman Bergson: Let me give you an example....this is important....[13:39] Clerisse Beeswing: neat qwark[13:39] Qwark Allen: :-)[13:40] herman Bergson: Take a glass of water....[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie: I wave my hand over my head but can not find it[13:40] herman Bergson: in that glass are H2O molecules.....[13:40] herman Bergson: and the water is liquid.....[13:41] herman Bergson: If the H2O molecus produce the liquidity...where did they put it?[13:41] Clerisse Beeswing: we put it back in the air[13:42] herman Bergson: liquidity is only a quality which can exists with H2O molecules.....[13:42] herman Bergson: it is not a property as such....[13:42] Mick Nerido: there is ice[13:42] Bejiita Imako: its a matter state[13:42] herman Bergson: like you can have water on the one hand and liquidity on the other hand[13:43] Bejiita Imako: like ice liquid gas plasma[13:43] Aristotle von Doobie: LOL it will surly run through your fingers, but can be touched....maybe it is ether[13:43] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:43] herman Bergson: that is how the brain and mind are related...[13:43] Qwark Allen: i`m not so sure about that[13:44] Qwark Allen: how you relate it?[13:44] herman Bergson: We haven't the slightest idea why H2O molecules cause liquidity at a given state[13:44] herman Bergson: neither do we know how the brain causes consciousness in a given state[13:44] Clerisse Beeswing: like rain[13:44] Qwark Allen: that depends on temperature[13:45] Qwark Allen: it`s a physical process[13:45] Clerisse Beeswing: hmm I see[13:45] Qwark Allen: depends on the angle of the atoms inside the molecule[13:45] Mick Nerido: I think the brain is a machine The Mind is a work it does[13:46] Bejiita Imako: molecules moving at different speeds and energy grab each other in a different way that why these states happen in matter[13:46] Aristotle von Doobie: yet with water, new theories as to why can be tested...proved or debunked, with the mind that is not possible[13:46] Clerisse Beeswing: every organ in our bodies is a machine or something[13:46] herman Bergson: that applies to the brain too Qwark...when you freeze it there is no mind either :-)[13:46] Bejiita Imako: the mind may bee a bit more complex indeed[13:46] Qwark Allen: it`s very complex[13:47] Mick Nerido: Not all minds achieve consciousness[13:47] herman Bergson: oh yes..and the them of today hits a central nerve....subjective consciousness[13:47] Qwark Allen: it`s where we got in the metaphysic[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie: the mind borders on being mystical[13:47] Qwark Allen: ehheeh[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie: a mystery for sure[13:47] herman Bergson: The subjective mind does , Aristotle[13:48] herman Bergson: The phenomenon of subjectivity is a big philosophical problem...[13:48] Mick Nerido: I think therefore I am...[13:49] Merel Heron: it is difficult to see the difference between mind and brain[13:49] Qwark Allen: remember my question 2 years ago? when we die, where does this electricity goes? we know in nature nothing is lost, everything transforms[13:49] Merel Heron: i am puzzled about it[13:49] herman Bergson: Well Mick even that is a problematic statement....[13:49] herman Bergson: Because Descartes smuggled something in, that wasnt there...the "I"[13:49] Aristotle von Doobie: I think therefore I think I am[13:50] Qwark Allen: can we be souls without a body, waiting for a body in a kind of limbo?[13:50] herman Bergson: the only thing he really could have said that there was tinking....[13:50] herman Bergson: Not that there was an "I"[13:50] herman Bergson: where did that "I"come from...with identity, a past and a present...?[13:50] Mick Nerido: But that is at the center of conciousness the "I"[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie: what could the should be other than the mind?[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie: soul[13:51] herman Bergson: soul is just a word....[13:51] herman Bergson: no idea who invented the word[13:51] Qwark Allen: soul, it`s the electricity that is on the brain[13:51] Mick Nerido: Soul might mean consciousness to some people[13:51] Aristotle von Doobie: well, religion sure loves the word[13:52] Qwark Allen: mind = soul[13:52] herman Bergson: True Aristotle...., but that doesn't prove a thing...[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie: maybe Dante invented it[13:52] herman Bergson: Why naming consciousness soul or electricity....[13:53] herman Bergson: do we really know what the concept of consciousness means...[13:53] Qwark Allen: because we are humans[[13:53] herman Bergson: We have that discussion waiting for us...:-)[13:53] Qwark Allen: we need to catalogue everything[13:54] Merel Heron: you have different levels of consciousness[13:54] Mick Nerido: Consciousness is a highly developed self awareness[13:54] herman Bergson: Qwark is gonna take his consciousness to his party ^_^[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie: later on Q-Man[13:55] herman Bergson: Duty calls , I guess :-)[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:55] Mick Nerido: lol[13:55] Qwark Allen: yes[13:55] Qwark Allen: i got to go[13:55] Qwark Allen: was interesting class[13:55] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`[13:55] Qwark Allen: ty[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok cu there Q[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie: bye Qwark[13:55] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡[13:55] herman Bergson: Well..then it is time to offer you a well deserved vacation for a week...^_^[13:55] :: Beertje ::: have a nice evening quark[13:55] Clerisse Beeswing: bye qbaby[13:56] Mick Nerido: Bye Quark'[13:56] herman Bergson: I guess you have enough to think about now[13:56] Mick Nerido: Yes thanks[13:56] Merel Heron: ohhh yes we have[13:56] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes was interesting as usual[13:56] :: Beertje ::: yes as always Herman:)[13:56] Mick Nerido: Have a nice vacation[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie: it will surely take a very hight level of consciousness to find the mind[13:57] Merel Heron: thank you professor Bergson[13:57] Bejiita Imako: have a nice time now Herman and cu afterwards againb ㋡[13:57] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor..good class[13:57] Merel Heron: have indeed a nice vacation[13:57] Aristotle von Doobie: Thank you Professor....relax and enjoy your time off :)[13:57] :: Beertje ::: escape from Carneval:)[13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...see you all on March 15 again ^_^[13:58] Merel Heron: oké bye bye all[13:58] Bejiita Imako: cu ㋡[13:58] Bejiita Imako: bye
"We treat the mind and the body as separate because that is what we experience. I am controlling my body, but I am more than just my body. We sense that we exist independently of our bodies.", says Bruce Hood.This is a very peculiar situation, we are in. It does not, however, touch our epistemological position, in my opinion. Kant is right when he states that the mind has its own mechanisms to make sensory experiences meaningful experiences.Otherwise stated, we would say that the brain is not an empty vessel that gets filled up as soon as consciousness emerges in the human organism, but that it comes with a extensive toolbox to help it understand and interact with its environment.Statements which are knowledge claims, tell us something about the world, which is independent of the mind and describe states of affairs, which we can check.One state of affairs of which we claim that it is really the case, is our conclusion that the mind is generated by the brain. No brain means no mind.A physically damaged brain means a damaged mind. A chemically influenced brain with pills or drugs results in a seriously influenced or confused mind.And yet we generally experience our mind as a kind of independent of our body. The mind controls the body and we are not easily inclined to believe that the body controls the mind, although this seems to be the actual state of affairs.Linguistically the mind is enigmatic. We can construct sentences which have a proper syntax, but sound so puzzling. For instance:"I have a mind."Pretty simple observation it seems, isn't it, but compare it with the statement "I have a car". Looks 100% the same, but the semantical conclusions are puzzling.That car isn't me. It is an physical object,which I possess. The statement "I have a mind" can't have the same semantics. The mind is not some physical object. Then what does this statement mean? And who is that "I" who possesses a mind?You probably know officer Murphy from the movie Robocop. His brain without memories is implanted in a cybernetic machine. He is regarded to be just a machine until gradually his memories come back.In Kafka's The Metamorphosis (Die Verwandlung, 1915) Gregor Samsa discovered that he has changed into a huge beetle, but he still is Gregor Samsa.These examples suggest that we have some strong opinions about what makes something a unique human person. Adults are inclined to believe you are you as long as your mind and memories are there, whether the brain is in a jar or in your body.Our conscious experience of our own minds and memories inclines us to think of minds being unique and the source of personal identity. We certainly don’t think our own minds and memories could belong to other people, says Bruce Hood in his book Supersense.Alzheimer confronts us too with this idea of personal identity. A friend of mine once said to me: " It is so hard to visit her. She looks like my mother, but she isn't my mother anymore."From childhood on we grow up with this dualistic view. Then it is easy to believe that the mind is not necessarily chained to the physical brain.Thence, could there be a possibility, that the mind can escape the fate of the physical body and survive? This is a view that is strongly supported by all kinds of religions,but we must recognize that the concept of the immortal soul originates in the normal reasoning processes of every child.In an article, “The Development of ‘Afterlife’ Beliefs in Secularly and Religiously Schooled Children,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23 (2005), three researchers observedthat children raised in a secular environment may express fewer afterlife beliefs than children raised in a religious household, but they still retain notions of some form of mental life that survives death.The survival of such ideas into adulthood does not need to be the result of indoctrination in childhood. It appeals to our supersense to think that we can continue to exist after our death.I won't deal with these issues now, but here we run into fundamental philosophical questions about The Self, Consciousness and Personal Identity.That is work still to be done, so stay tuned!
The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: thank you :-)[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark....feel free..[13:24] herman Bergson: This was a bit much I guess in a nutshell[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: the mind is not chained to the body[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: I wonder if a child were isolated from birth to the interview if they would express the same belief in the after life of their mind[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i think they would not expect the life they are in to disappear[13:25] herman Bergson: Well Gemma...in fact the mind is...tho we have difficulty to believe this[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: so.. isolation would not lead to death thoughts[13:25] herman Bergson: And Aristotle...the development of the mind is well described by Piaget..[13:26] herman Bergson: so the dualistic idea about oneself is almost an innate line of thinking...[13:26] herman Bergson: We experience the mind as something different from the body...[13:26] herman Bergson: we don't experience it as being physical[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true[13:27] herman Bergson: that mad e Descartes believe that the mind is a non substantial substance...[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: I hear you, but have to think that the mind is influenced not only through self exploratioin but parents and peers[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: even at a young age[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that is very true ari[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: hi jozen[13:28] herman Bergson: yes but even then the dualistic view is not necessarily the result of indoctrination in childhood...[13:28] Jozen Ocello: Hi Herman sorry I'm late[13:28] Jozen Ocello: hi Gemma hi everyone[13:28] herman Bergson: it is a logical consequence of how the mind develops[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hi Jozen[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: hi josen[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: I would agree to the development of the mind post birth, yes[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: but I fear I hold strongly to the tabula rasa[13:29] Jozen Ocello accepted your inventory offer.[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:29] herman Bergson: there you are refuted by neurobiological facts Aristotle[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: i don't think so[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: read piaget[13:30] herman Bergson: Kant was right in my opinion[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, someone just needs to convince me otherwise[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: not me[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: so far not enough evidence for me[13:30] herman Bergson: read all reseach done on babies[13:30] herman Bergson: takes out his baseball bat...[13:31] herman Bergson: ok Aristotle...lol[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: :)))[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why there are so many philosophers with different approaches[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: about the same life[13:32] herman Bergson: Ye t I hope to show you that neurobiological evidence shows that we are no clean slate at birth[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: in talking about the mind my daughter reproached me for thinking theer is one[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: at what age[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: she is taking a a neurobiological class and thinks there is on neurons[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: only[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: ah[13:33] herman Bergson: No children prefer to speak of I and me....they hardly use the word mind in conversation[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: she is a senior[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: college[13:33] herman Bergson: then she needs to clarify what she means by MIND[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, I agree LOL[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: she will[13:34] herman Bergson: But is she means that there does not exists more than the body then I would agree with her[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:34] herman Bergson: if[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: but her evidence is research to support her position[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: teh same evidence you have referenced :)[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: same evidence[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: in the next class she will think differently i imagine[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: what ever it is[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: it is funny, the concept of strictly biological reactions[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that neurobiological research will clear a lot of philosophical disputes...[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: I think so too[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes maybe that[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I asked her where the driver of the car was?[13:36] herman Bergson: for instance the empiricist (Locke - tabula rasa ) view and Kantian rationalist view...[13:36] herman Bergson: Ah......there you go Aristotle...[13:37] herman Bergson: there is the illusion of the mind....[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: and she said?????[13:37] herman Bergson: because your daughter could ask you...who is the driver of the driver?[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, she implied I was not sane in thinking differently LOL[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well you are only her father[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yes Gemma Indeed[13:38] herman Bergson: You still think of the ghost in the machine Aristotle...[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: well, in my trilogy I suppose, the mind is the holy ghost[13:38] herman Bergson: if the ghost controls the machine..ok...but who or what controls the ghost...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:39] herman Bergson: let me rephrase…[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: my ghost apparently has gone rogue[13:39] herman Bergson: I think about myself...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: starts to sound like the classic saying turtles all way down[13:39] herman Bergson: so I am smarter than myself...we are two...[13:40] herman Bergson: But this I, can he think about himself too?...should be..yes[13:40] herman Bergson: the problem here is....and we'll discuss that later[13:40] herman Bergson: that you get in an infinite regress...[13:40] herman Bergson: I think that I think that think that I think...[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:41] herman Bergson: so here the mind mKES short-circuiting [13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: either way it is extremely titelating to think of it[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:41] herman Bergson: oh yes.....[13:42] herman Bergson: I still havent' it figured out myself....[13:42] herman Bergson: But here you see the influence on neurobiology on philosophy...[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: we will be very rich when we do[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: and there is so much discovered every day[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: teh discovery is exponential[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....[13:43] Bejiita Imako: indeed¨[13:43] herman Bergson: When I wrote my thesis on this subject in 1977 neurobiology was hardly mentioned[13:44] herman Bergson: the ideas of materialism were pure philosophical discourse...[13:44] Jozen Ocello: the intersection of the two fields are most interesting indeed[13:44] herman Bergson: but now to say that the brain is the mind and that the brain controls the mind is almost common knowledge in scientific circles[13:45] Caipirisma Laval: we will have prove what happens when they are able to transplant a brain.. i think[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh[13:45] herman Bergson: What pleases me the most is ...that my arguments from 1977 now are corroberated by scientific evidence...[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I am sure[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: i have an idea it will be legally prevented in most countries[13:46] herman Bergson: Well Cai...transplantin a brain was the issue in RObocop...[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: remember the first face transplant???[13:46] Caipirisma Laval: i mean ..not in a movie:))[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: an uproar[13:47] Jozen Ocello: oh yes, that wasn't too long ago was it, Gemma?[13:47] Jozen Ocello: a very good example[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: no[13:47] herman Bergson: What is the question at stake here is...what makes a person to an individual person....that is ..what is personal identity[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: within two years[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: that has been the question[13:47] Caipirisma Laval: true..what happends..with memories..well the patient can tell us at that time..[13:47] herman Bergson: That doesnt matter Cai..whether it is in a movie or in reality...[13:48] Caipirisma Laval: i think it does matter[13:48] herman Bergson: and yes GEmma...a face transplant...and personal identity...huge question[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: but how infintesimal the fulcrum point must be that determines which controls which, brainn or mind[13:49] herman Bergson: Philosophically it isn't that important Cai....[13:49] herman Bergson: it is only the difference between technically thinkable and technically possible...[13:50] herman Bergson: if it is already thinkable, you have to face the philosophical questions..related to th eissue[13:50] Caipirisma Laval: hmm..a brain cant function without the body..and body not without a brain..[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: and then the question arise, can the mind be excised[13:50] herman Bergson: because it was thinkable to fly to the moon ..Jules Verne did so[13:51] herman Bergson: It immediately provoked the question ..where is god and where is heaven[13:51] herman Bergson: when the first russian astronaut was send in to space ..Gagarin....[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: once thought of, all that remains is technology to catch up with the thought[13:52] herman Bergson: the first thing he said was...there is no heaven here...just space[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, he must have have the metaphor of heaven n his mind as being up[13:52] herman Bergson: this is how philosophically thinkable and technically possible relate[13:53] Bejiita Imako: what did he expected to find, little angels on clouds playing harps[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess so yes...[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:53] Caipirisma Laval: if technology change..philosophy change with it[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: some folks cant see the forest for the trees[13:54] Caipirisma Laval: change of view..[13:54] herman Bergson: In fact it is the other way around Cai.....[13:54] Caipirisma Laval: possible to..smiles[13:54] Jozen Ocello: i like what you said, Herman "philosophical thinkable" and "technologically possible"[13:54] herman Bergson: when the scientist comes up with a new idea, new theory....new technology will emerge...[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: true[13:55] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:55] herman Bergson: the scientist is the philosopher who changed his interpretation of nature[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: took awhile for DaVinci :)[13:55] Caipirisma Laval: so it can be visa versa[13:55] Bejiita Imako: I still wait for the LHC to give me hard facts about some stuff however the damn machine only stryggles now[13:56] herman Bergson: yes Cai...first there is the thought...then there is the technology created based on the thought[13:56] Bejiita Imako: dumped now when colliding the beams so have to start over again[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ran fine yesterday at least[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: well[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: thing is so big!!!!!![13:56] Bejiita Imako: many theories to be answered by it[13:56] Bejiita Imako: and i want to know SOON[13:56] Bejiita Imako: curious like hell now[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:57] herman Bergson: I can imagine Bejiita...[13:57] herman Bergson: Must be sensational to get the answer[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: his mind is obsessed with it[13:57] Bejiita Imako: feels we get closer and closer but cant reach all the way now when it behave like this[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: better be soon!!!![13:58] Bejiita Imako: I want it to find some stuff that will rewrite all the schoolbooks[13:58] herman Bergson: I would suggest we all light a candle for Bejiita....^_^[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: just don't let Texas write em[13:58] Bejiita Imako: would be amazing[13:58] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: no[13:58] herman Bergson: We covered a lot of ground today.....[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i will make it thursday[13:59] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:59] herman Bergson: So, time to thank you for your great participation in the debate[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman :)[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all soon[13:59] Jozen Ocello: i'll be here on thursday but may be 10-15 mins[13:59] herman Bergson: See you soon again...[13:59] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu then[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^[13:59] Caipirisma Laval: ty professor[13:59] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman:)[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: gotta run, good bye all[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class! see u thursday[14:00] herman Bergson: My Pleasure Beertje[14:00] Bejiita Imako: bye[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [14:00] Caipirisma Laval: yes ..thats me:))[14:00] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma
