370: The Brain and a new point of view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

368: The Brain and Consciousness

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

CONSCIOUSNESS….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

355: The Identity Theory, a first evaluation

The Identity theory is about the relation between brain states and mental states. Before we begin to address the question,"What are mental states?", it will be useful to have before us a list of the most significant features of mental states.

Such a list will help us assess theories of mental states by determining the extent to which a theory explains the existence of these features.

ln general, a theory of mental states which makes sense of these features is to be preferred to a theory which does not. Here's a possible list of general features of mental states.

1. Some mental states are caused by states of the world.
2. Some mental states cause actions.
3. Some mental states cause other mental states.

4. Some mental states are conscious.
5. Some mental states are about things in the world.
6. Some kinds of mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.

I guess you can fill in for yourself easily how these abstract descriptions apply to what goes on in our mind, whereas point 6 is the result of contemporary neuroscience.

How well does the Identity Theory explain these six features of mental states. Let's have a closer look.

"1. Some mental states are caused by states of the world."
I see a car (mental state) and there is a car approaching me.

If, as the identity theory claims, mental states are brain states, then the first feature amounts to the claim that some brain states are caused by states of the world.

Equally with respect to "2. Some mental states cause actions." we have discussed a overwhelming amount of neuro-scientific data and examples in previous lectures, which confirm that this is the case.

"3. Some mental states cause other mental states."
When I have the belief that it is Thursday today, and that on Thursday I always lecture, then I have good reason to believe that this is a lecture day today for me.

With "good reason" I mean, that the relations between my mental states are often characterized by rationality.

Here we run into a serious question: how can an account of the rationality of thought be squared with the claim that mental states are brain states?

"4. Some mental states are conscious." This is going to be the toughest nut to crack. How do consciousness and certain brain states relate to each other?

Like claim nr. 3 this feature of mental states will get considerable attention in next lectures.

"5. Some mental states are about things in the world."
Mental states represent the world as being in a certain way. My thoughts are always thoughts about something and often about things in the world.

That some brain state occurs in the visual cortex, when we look at a picture for instance, is common knowledge, but here it is about the content of a mental state. Is there a picture too? We'll pay attention to this issue in future lectures. Gonna be a difficult chapter.

"6. Some kinds of mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.
"
According to the identity theory, mental states literally are brain states.
Consequently, the identity theory smoothly explains the systematic correlation of mental states with brain states.

Whereas Dualism already crashed on explaining feature one and two of mental states, the identity appears to do a better job.

But yet we are still left with a number of questions. We still have a long way to go to get a full understanding of a theory of mind.

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:21] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free....
[13:22] Farv Hallison: I only recently realized that the mind is different from consciousness.
[[13:22] Farv Hallison: I used to think they are the same.
[13:22] Farv Hallison: I read Dennett's book thinking they are the same.
[13:22] herman Bergson: That is a matter of conceptual analysis Farv...
[13:23] herman Bergson: Just from scratch I would say...
[13:23] Qwark Allen: after this last lectures i think , mind, conscious and brain are the same thing
[13:23] herman Bergson: you have two stages of consciousness....
[13:23] herman Bergson: eventually yes Qwark...
[13:24] herman Bergson: But you can make a difference between awareness and consciousness....
[13:24] Qwark Allen: only brain states
[13:24] herman Bergson: when you drive your car you perform all kinds of actions of which you are not conscious of, but yet aware...shifting gear, breaking etc...
[13:25] herman Bergson: while you are conscious of the surrounding traffic....
[13:25] Qwark Allen: the brain as the focus thing
[13:25] Qwark Allen: we are focus in what we are doing
[13:25] herman Bergson: those two, awareness and consciousness, I would call the mind
[13:26] Qwark Allen: still a brain state
[13:26] Qwark Allen: i'm aware of priorities
[13:26] herman Bergson: and yes...just brain states
[13:26] Farv Hallison: I am thinking of those experiments where the subject is consciously aware only a half second after a descion has been made.
[13:26] herman Bergson: the Libett story, Farv....yes....
[13:27] herman Bergson: I still don' know what to think about it...
[13:27] herman Bergson: the conclusion is often that it proofs that th ebrain decides and we only have the illusion that we consciously decide, have free will in that
[13:28] herman Bergson: I am still working on that chapter
[13:28] Qwark Allen: i was thinking the same…. the brain can be manipulated
[13:28] Farv Hallison: I interpret it to mean that consciousness is different than the brain.
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes Qwark....for instance...memories can be provoked by electro-stimulation of certain brain areas
[13:29] Qwark Allen: herman will go to free will again soon ^^
[13:29] Qwark Allen: some past lectures were about free will , and how we can manipulate brain states to a purpose
[13:29] herman Bergson: that is a kind of dualistic interpretation , I would say Farv
[[13:30] Qwark Allen: yet, was a brain state tha
[13:31] Farv Hallison: I call it triality because I think the mind makes the decisions and it is different than the brain.
[13:31] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:31] Qwark Allen: funny
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well look at the situation more closely....
[13:32] herman Bergson: there is the "I" that decides to raise my hand....
[13:32] herman Bergson: I even don't know what that I is but I can say here I am...
[13:33] herman Bergson: then in the brain the motoric parts are faster in action than the other part that makes me say "I raised my hand"
[13:33] herman Bergson: the famous half second...
[13:33] herman Bergson: So what is observed is brain activity in two different areas only with a temporal difference
[13:34] herman Bergson: and fro that they conclude that the brain is faster than the conscious experience of raising my arm....
[13:34] Qwark Allen: the same temporal difference explains the " deja vu"
[13:34] herman Bergson: to me it is bogus
[13:34] herman Bergson: the brain is a unity..thus is the mind....
[13:35] herman Bergson: For instance....
[13:35] herman Bergson: there is no single spot in the brain that can be pointed out as THE central processor, so to speak
[13:36] herman Bergson: Francis Crick suggested that the unity of the brain was created by brain areas working together at the same 40Mhz or somethin glike that
[13:37] herman Bergson: So free will is gonna be a nice subject
[13:37] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:37] herman Bergson: and the unity of the person too :-)
[13:37] Farv Hallison: more like 40 Hertz
[13:37] herman Bergson: You certainly will be right Farv....your area :-)
[13:38] Qwark Allen: i was thinking more in gigaherz
[13:38] herman Bergson: With Mhz our brain would be cooke din no time
[13:38] Qwark Allen: the calculations in brain are more then 40 hertz/second
[13:39] herman Bergson: I am no neuro scientist...I just pick up the idea...
[13:39] Qwark Allen: for a computer reach the brain speed, they got to evoulte processors more 20 years
[13:39] Qwark Allen: CPUs now are around 16 gigahertz
[13:39] Farv Hallison: Hertz is oscilations per second
[13:39] Qwark Allen: or calculations
[13:40] herman Bergson: the main point...philosophically and from a brian state point of view is
[13:40] herman Bergson: that there is nothing in the brain that shows this oneness which we as a person experience....
[13:41] herman Bergson: So ..there is no "I" in the brain....but it is in the mind!
[13:41] herman Bergson: when mental states and brain stated are identical...we may have a problem here with the "I"
[13:42] herman Bergson: We could suggest that the "I" is constituted by consciousness
[13:42] herman Bergson: produced by consciousness....
[13:43] herman Bergson: I really have to think about this....

[13:43] herman Bergson: or the "I" is identical to consciousness which is identical to a brianstate....
[13:44] herman Bergson: Well, I guess I drop this puzzle into your laps ^_^
[13:44] herman Bergson: and thank you for your participation...
[13:44] Farv Hallison: ^_^
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: if you figure it out you'll get the nobel prize probably, Herman:)
13:44] herman Bergson: You might be right about that, Lizzy
[13:44] Bibbe Oh: or lynched
[13:44] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:45] Frederica Lexenstar: there is no nobel prize in philosophy
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well a prize or a funeral…I am working on it...
[13:45] Frederica Lexenstar: :-P
[13:45] Bibbe Oh: they reward Philosophers oddly in our world
[13:45] Bibbe Oh: or have in history
[13:45] Frederica Lexenstar: hemlock
[13:45] herman Bergson: What you say Bibbe…..!!!!
[13:45] herman Bergson: That is true....
[13:46] herman Bergson: isn't that amazing actually !!!!
[13:46] Bibbe Oh: yes!
[13:46] herman Bergson: It tells something about the way this Nobel looked at this world
[13:46] Qwark Allen: i have to go
[13:47] Qwark Allen: see you tuesday
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: TC Qwark
[13:47] Qwark Allen: ty hermaan, exellent lecture
[13:47] Qwark Allen: .-)
[13:47] herman Bergson: Ok Qwark...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ...^_^
[13:47] Frederica Lexenstar: thank you!'
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[13:47] Farv Hallison: Thank you Professor Bergson
[13:48] Bibbe Oh: thank you, Professor
[13:48] herman Bergson: Nice class again....thank you
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a nice evening all:)
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Good night Herman, good night everybody!
[13:49] herman Bergson: Night Lizzy

Lecture 347: The Brain and the Inner Theater

Today I want to present to you a very common explanation of consciousness. Consciousness has different meanings. We are conscious or asleep, for instance.

But in our discourse I define consciousness as a personal realm of subjective experiences… that is….what I hear,smell, taste, feel and see. Some philosophers call it "phenomenal consciousness"

Let's look at a general process…. Your eyes see a bird. The image is projected on the retina in the eye. The data are transmitted to the brain and in the brain you have the image of that bird.

"I can picture it in my mind.." is a common expression. What it all boils down to is the common sense theory of the Inner Theater. We tend to believe that we are a kind of watching an inner screen.

Is consciousness indeed something like that. Does the Inner Theater theory explain consciousness?

The odd thing with this common believe about consciousness and how it works, is, that everybody can see that it is completely false, that the brain doesn't work like that, but yet love to use it.

There is plenty of empirical counter-evidence. The cutaneous rabbit illusion, for instance, is a tactile illusion evoked by tapping two separate regions of the skin.

A rapid sequence of taps delivered first near the wrist, and then near the elbow creates the sensation of sequential taps hopping up the arm from the wrist towards the elbow, although no physical stimulus was applied between the two actual stimulus locations.

If there is an inner theater of consciousness at which we receive sensory messages from the outlying senses, the images should show up on the screen in the order they come in from the exterior sources.

But that is not the case at all… Say you feel 12 taps on your arm, moving from wrist to elbow. Only tap 1, 6 and 12 are real taps. The brain fills in tap 3, 4 and 6. But how can it do that, if it not also knows tap 6?

Likewise we have auditory illusions where the brain fools us with respect to the order of incoming sensory data. A sound that seems to move through the room from the left to the right speaker and back, for instance.

A movie is a series of still images, but yet we see movement. We have a plethora of visual tricks, which create illusions that only can be cooked up by the brain by manipulating the order of the incoming data. Movies and TV are the simplest examples.

Ok…Let's test the inner theater some more. Imagine a soldier. There he is on your inner screen, standing there with his weapon.

Now answer a few questions honestly. Don't fill them in flanks after the question. You have to know the answer , that is see your soldier, before I ask the question.

[13:21] herman Bergson: Ok..you have imagined your soldier...on your inner screen?
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: yes
[13:21] Pirie Takacs: Yes

Has your soldier scares? Are there decorations and medals on his uniform jacket? Does he wear a helmet? What color is his jacket? And his pants? Are there buttons on his jacket and if how many?

If you were looking at a real picture you could have answered all the questions easily, but that is not how imagination works…there is no inner screen with a picture.

[13:22] herman Bergson: I guess you had no answer to a few of the questions
[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: if i look at my inner screen i cant answer all questions
[13:23] herman Bergson: exactly...
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:23] Mick Nerido: mine was a green toy solder
[13:23] herman Bergson: because there is no inner screen :-)

Where do you think your inner theater is???
Yes…in your head…somewhere behind your eyes, isn't it?

That believe is just a cultural indoctrination. The Egyptians mummified their pharaos. Mummified the heart, the liver and kidneys, but removed the brain from the skull….useless in an afterlife. That was not the place where the mind resides, according to them.


In neurobiology we find no indication of a location in the brain where all things come together as in an inner theater in the brain.

There are motoric areas, language areas and so on in the brain, but not some kind of central unifying processor.

The inner theater idea works only for sight. If it were a correct description of consciousness it should work for all senses. But what pictures do you see with taste or smell?

When the eye sees something, the image is said to be projected on the inner screen. But then there must be somebody who is watching that screen! The inner me! And should that inner me not have its own Inner Theater too with an inner me2, watching …and so on?

A dead end street, it seems. This theory doesn't answer our questions. Dualism wasn't an answer either. So we might end up with the conclusion, that the mind is a property, a feature of the brain.

That offers us a mountain of new questions…..


The Discussion

[13:28] herman Bergson: So much on our first attempt to close in on consciousness...
[13:29] herman Bergson: The floor is yours....
[13:29] Doodus Moose: sometimes, when i fall asleep -
[13:29] Doodus Moose: and start to dream - i can see an image form
[13:29] Doodus Moose: ...but immediately wake up
[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: (sorry have to leave - real life needs me - have a good discussion all)
[13:29] Doodus Moose: a VERY crude version of this image stays in my "eyes" if i keep them closed
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Doodus...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Maybe it is not an image, but a description....
[13:30] herman Bergson: a description is always incomplete...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Like you imagined the soldier...
[13:30] herman Bergson: it wasn't a clean clear cut picture...
[13:30] Doodus Moose: it's monochrome (usually brownish), and mostly outlines
[13:30] herman Bergson: but you could have given a description
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: i think our brain is lazy and only sees some features
[13:31] Doodus Moose: yes
[13:31] Mick Nerido: illiterate people "see" the world differently.
[13:31] herman Bergson: to call the brain lazy is an evaluation produced by the brain….funny :-)
[13:31] Qwark Allen: ehehhe
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: lol
[13:32] herman Bergson: I don't call my brain lazy ^_^
[13:32] Qwark Allen: we don`t see the all picture, we focalize
[13:32] Qwark Allen: then the brain fills the blank points
[13:32] Qwark Allen: very complex
[13:32] herman Bergson: we don't see pictures at all I would say Qwark...
[13:32] Mick Nerido: we see what we think is there...the gorella in the room experiment..
[13:33] herman Bergson: We can give descriptions of things we imagine
[13:33] Qwark Allen: we have a restricted vision of the surrounding
[13:33] Qwark Allen: we see a infidecimal part of nature
[13:33] Doodus Moose: does self-hypnosis play in the theater of the mind?
[13:33] Doodus Moose: (or hypnosis, for that matter)
[13:33] Qwark Allen: cause of our restricted vision
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: isn't it a special quality to imagine more than average?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well, Lizzy, I would say that artists do?
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: yes, i would say that
[13:35] herman Bergson: But the main point is, that our consciousness is not a kind of screen we are looking at
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: in the brain there even is a part that can be pointed out as the unifying control center...
[13:36] herman Bergson: this is a great mystery of the brain...
[13:36] herman Bergson: Francis Crick (if I spell his name right)
[13:36] Mick Nerido: What is control center?
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: its not only controlling, it also selects and combines, I would say
[13:37] herman Bergson: has the theory that tis unity occurs when certain parts of the brain all are at 40Mhz vibrairion or so...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well, Mick...
[13:37] herman Bergson: You experience yourself as a whole..a unity...
[13:38] herman Bergson: but in brainscans they can't find that ONE spot...where all comes together
[13:38] herman Bergson: so
[13:38] herman Bergson: our consciousness tells us we are one...
[13:39] herman Bergson: but physiologically in the brain...there is not such a thing
[13:39] herman Bergson: just a multitude of areas that fire
[13:39] lentelies Anatine is Offline
[13:40] herman Bergson: The difficulty of the question after consciousness is really breath taking...
[13:40] herman Bergson: But I wont give up ^_^
[13:40] herman Bergson: Next lecture on coming Thursday ^_^
[13:41] Doodus Moose: (just to share)
[13:41] Doodus Moose: i had a vision of a wall of glass
[13:41] Doodus Moose: along with the vision was orders to build a house
[13:41] Qwark Allen: was very interesting today herman
[13:41] Doodus Moose: i'm ill-equipped to do so,
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: it is really interesting
[13:41] Doodus Moose: but..... today i live in that house (which i designed)
[13:42] herman Bergson: ok Doodus
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: it is an exciting theme
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: will you continue this, herman?
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy and we are closing in on the hot spot of it...:-)
[13:42] Pirie Takacs: You say that unity occurs after - is it some- parts of the brain fire at 40mhz, couldnt it be that the whole of the brain IS the centre of unity?
[13:43] herman Bergson: But of course Sybyle...
[13:43] herman Bergson: We only saw the top of the iceberg
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: that is such a difficult theme
[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: yay
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: but real interesting
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: and i hope we are not the titanic
[13:43] Mick Nerido: Yes Pirie!
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes it is difficult...but a worthwhile challenge!
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ah Pirie....see your remark
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes of course it is the whole brain....
[13:45] herman Bergson: but that doesn't explain a thing about consciousness
[13:45] Pirie Takacs: Then why are we looking for one spot?
[13:45] Mot Mann is Online
[13:45] herman Bergson: nor the feeling we have to be ONE identity
[13:45] Qwark Allen: i have to go
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: TC qwark
[13:45] Qwark Allen: looking forward for next lecture
[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you tuesday
[13:45] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:45] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you all sooon
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Bye
[13:46] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark!
[13:46] herman Bergson: No Pirie..it is the other way around...
[13:46] herman Bergson: we experience ourselves as a whole...as one...
[13:46] herman Bergson: when you look at the brain....
[13:47] herman Bergson: there is nowhere on fMRI scans one big red dot all the time present...
[13:47] herman Bergson: just a number of firing areas...
[13:47] Pirie Takacs nods
[13:48] Doodus Moose: like a lightning storm (almost)
[13:48] herman Bergson: so on the one hand we may say that I am my brain...
[13:48] Kicki Spingflower is Online
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: may I ask..
[13:48] herman Bergson: on the other hand I dont know how my brain generates this one personal identity experience
[13:48] herman Bergson: what we call self awareness
[13:49] herman Bergson: You had a question Sybyle
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: what about babies?
[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: do they see themselves also as aunit?
[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: or must they learn
[13:50] Janette Shim is Offline
[13:50] herman Bergson: a difficult question.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: the human being is after birth a developing organism
[13:51] herman Bergson: self awareness and a feeling of personal identity...the THIS IS ME feeling emerges during the development of the organism
[13:52] herman Bergson: The only thing you can say for sure is, that it will emerge eventually in every human being
[13:52] herman Bergson: I mean....that is what the brain develops into...
[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:53] Doodus Moose: "the human mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be set alight"
[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a nice metaphor Doodus...
[13:54] SonolaLuna Greymoon is Online
[13:54] herman Bergson: the human being , from birth, is a developing organism in interaction with its environment and learning to survive
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate is Online
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: can we say the brain is always in a changing process that never ends?
[13:55] herman Bergson: If you look at evolution Lizzy, the answer should be YES...
[13:55] Doodus Moose: thanks everyone, for a good discussion ;-)
[13:55] Pirie Takacs: Surely it must be the firing of the brain as a whole, so maybe it is a mistake to look for the 'one' place, I am thinking. Maybe the entire function of the brain is to 'be' us, and the parts we can isolate and attribute our separate functioning processes to are just that, only parts that make up the reason our brain exists in the first place - to run our bodies and to give us a sense of 'self' or consciousness? I apologise if my question sounds silly.
[13:55] herman Bergson: thank you Doodus
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus is Offline
[13:56] herman Bergson: smiles at Pirie....
[13:57] herman Bergson: You just committed a sin ^_^
[13:57] Pirie Takacs blushes
[13:57] herman Bergson: Even though your name tag says Innocent ...:-)
[13:57] liessllvontrapp Resident is Offline
[13:57] herman Bergson: You offended against ~rule 5 :-)
[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Maybe I should change it to dumb, as a warning... *smiles contritely
[13:58] herman Bergson: no no....dont!
[13:58] herman Bergson: We are a small group now...so no problem...
[13:58] ellenilli Lavendel is Offline
[13:59] Pirie Takacs: Well.. I just have a problem with philosophy at times being a little less than practical, for me :)
[13:59] herman Bergson: I only mean that it doesnt work to drop large peices of text in a discussion like this...
[13:59] Pirie Takacs: I do apologise
[14:00] herman Bergson: no no...it is ok...you are rather new here...
[14:00] herman Bergson: you are excused
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: I only asked because I thought we could
[14:00] Omei Qunhua is Online
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: It is my first visit, yes
[14:00] Adriana Jinn: even if you are there since sometime it is not easy
[14:01] Adriana Jinn: grrr
[14:01] Adriana Jinn: the english is not easy for me so I dont talk but listening
[14:01] herman Bergson: philosophy isn't less than practical...
[14:01] herman Bergson: In fact it is at the heart of things...
[14:02] herman Bergson: To question the obvious...
[14:02] Pirie Takacs: I agree we need to think about things, but sometimes we need to alter our approach to a question also, I think.
[14:02] herman Bergson: what do you mean by that Pirie?
[14:03] herman Bergson: alter our approach to a question
[14:03] Pirie Takacs: Well, if we continue to look at a problem the same way and can't find an answer like that, maybe we need to look at the problem from a new angle?
[14:03] Adriana Jinn: it is very interesting but unfortunately have to go
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: thanks a lot herman see you soon
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: bye bye all
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: au revoir Adriana
[14:04] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)
[14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana
[14:04] Lizzy Pleides: bye Adriana
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: au revoir
[14:04] herman Bergson: Ohhh....
[14:04] herman Bergson: there you really hit bull's eye Pirie!
[14:05] herman Bergson: We have our language...
[14:05] herman Bergson: our way to describe mental things like emotions, experiences and so on..
[14:06] herman Bergson: But is it the right way of describing things?
[14:06] herman Bergson: Don't we need another "language" to describe the ways of the brain?
[14:06] herman Bergson: For example....
[14:07] Omei Qunhua is Offline
[14:07] herman Bergson: in the Middle Ages all kinds of things happened because of curses by whitches
[14:07] herman Bergson: illnesses were send by god to punish the sinners...
[14:07] herman Bergson: today we speak a totally different language....
[14:08] herman Bergson: illensses are caused by virusses
[14:08] herman Bergson: we dont cure them by endless praying..we use antibiotics..
[14:08] Pirie Takacs chuckles.. Some people still believe illnesses are sent by gods to punish us :)
[14:09] herman Bergson: sighs...
[14:09] herman Bergson: I know :-)
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: And such is the power of the mind that sometimes prayer does seem to 'cure' you... *smiles
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: I know what you are saying, but I was thinking more of asking the questions from another angle.
[14:09] herman Bergson: True...I admit that we do not at all understand the working of the mind
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: Possibly, but also in the questions we ask about the brain. If thinking there 'must' be a centre where our consciousness springs from is maybe an assumption only?
[14:10] herman Bergson: Yes..it is ...produced by that same brain...
[14:10] herman Bergson: so we have to find some explanation for it...
[14:11] herman Bergson: We still have a lot of lectures to go ^_^
[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: smiles
[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: I hope so
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: yes we have , thank you for this lesson today Herman
[14:11] herman Bergson: oh ..dont worry Sybyle ^_^
[14:12] Pirie Takacs: K. I hope I can make it to all of them :)
[14:12] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy!
[14:12] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^

331: The Mind and some Qualia

Although a lot of scientists can be regarded as materialists in one way or another, dualism has still its defenders.

Their main point is that there is more when it comes to the mind or consciousness than just matter.This more is at least of a non-physical nature.

To proof this, we get the next argument. imagine a future scientist who was deaf from birth, but who has acquired a perfect scientific understanding of how hearing operates in others.

This scientist may have been born stone deaf, but becomes the world's greatest expert on the machinery of hearing:

he knows everything that there is to know within the range of the physical and behavioral sciences about hearing.

Now suppose that they succeed to restore his ability to hear. The man knows every detail of the process of hearing and yet he learns something new:

It is suggested that he will then learn something he did not know before, which can be expressed as what it is like to hear, or the qualitative or phenomenal nature of sound.

Nowhere in the physical or material process of hearing you find that private experience of what it is like to hear.

Thence it is claimed 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.

This qualitative nature of our experiences from a subjective perspective is called the quale, most of the time discussed in plural: qualia.

If two brains perform exactly the same process: we both see something red, for instance, then the extra, which can not be deduced from the physical process, is the fact that it is MY experience and YOUR experience.

Although the processes may be identical there yet is something in the mind added, namely, the qualitative features of "what it is like" FOR ME to experience the color red.

It may sound to you as highly technical philosophical bickering, but the basic idea is that a 100% materialistic explanation of our consciousness is not possible. There is more.

Thus we must conclude that there are in our world at least two different properties: physical and non-physical.

The qualia issue has led to complex debates and argumentations since the famous article by Thomas Nagel "What is it like to be a bat?" from 1974.

The debate rages still on, but is till now controversial and inconclusive. Therefore it is not yet a refutation of our attempt to come to a materialistic interpretation of the mind.

We have to find an explanation of the subjectivity of the mind in a physicalistic sense. And there is something else…..

Our mind, our thoughts are always ABOUT" something. Mental states seem to have causal powers, but they also possess the mysterious property of intentionality

— being about other things — including things like Zeus and the square root of minus one, which do not exist.

Physical objects and processes lack this intentionality - this aboutness - How are we going to explain that…..perhaps in the next lecture.



The Discussion

[13:15] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)
[13:16] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark....go ahead..
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: are those avatars real here?
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: do they feel ?
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: do they exist in the universe?
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: this s a thing O wonder about sometime
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: let me finish bejiita...
[13:17] Mick Nerido: The deaf scientist would not understand what he hears it has to be "learned"
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: if me and my riend both feel happy do we feel the same
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: do we have the same experience
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: the reaction however is the same
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: id care what you experience :)
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: simple que
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: simple answer
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: do the avatars exist here
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: ?
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: so that make me think that we also must feel in a similar way
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: yawns...and leaves the scene to the prima donna
[13:18] herman Bergson: If you mean an identical experience Bejiita...the answer is no...
[13:18] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): kyra avatars exist in our minds here and there
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: ty gemma!
[13:18] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): an avatar is like a mask
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: interesting question indeed
[13:18] Sousinne Ceriano: The avatars have no mind, no brain, no existence beyond their connection to the person behind them, and the image as an in-world interface.
[13:18] ShinKenDo: I THINK SO IAM... I EXPERIENCE SO I FEEL
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: so is that mean..somehow..those avatars are real in a way?
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: for example if we think something is fun we laugh but does it feel the same for all
[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:19] Doodus Moose: Kyra - no, they're simply puppets
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, they are a form of communication, like someone talking.
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: that it feels good is for sure but similar
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: h
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: but yet..this is a cybernetic environment…
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Communication exists,.
[13:19] herman Bergson: It is a bit odd to suppose that avatars have a life and a mind....
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: we are cybernetic...
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: just like the "square root of minus one".
[13:19] Alaya Kumaki: i am not sure the the physics laws exposed the matter as lacking of intentionality, there, if i think about permissivity and permeability phenomenons, , but i don't recall who brought that,,,
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Not quite, eh?
[13:19] herman Bergson: Avatars…like a viewer are only tools
[13:19] Mick Nerido: The AV is a puppet yes
[13:20] Kyra Neutron: see the point herman...
[13:20] herman Bergson: created by and for us to communicate
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: the avatar is just a way to connect but since its a real person behind it the avatar will transfer our feelings rl
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: thats how I see it
[13:20] Sousinne Ceriano: Unless the person behind it is AFK.
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:20] herman Bergson: In that sense they don't differ from a hammer or a vacuum cleaner
[13:20] Kyra Neutron: shakes head..
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:20] Doodus Moose: Bejiita - communicate minus the body language and subtilities of human expression
[13:20] Alaya Kumaki: Permittivity is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: ok..so if you any of you stand up when i say i will fuck you little bejita...
[13:21] Alaya Kumaki: i saw that the first time as a door to realize that matter isn't inanimate from intentionality
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: nothing...just a vacuum cleaner right?
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: gigles
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, nothing.
[13:21] ShinKenDo: well in here we get something like a body language
[13:22] Doodus Moose: Shin- we're all in the same position :-)
[13:22] ShinKenDo: we somehow transform our ego int this puppet and make it feel
[13:22] ShinKenDo: so
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: alaya, I'm not sure the ability to affect things implies intentionality
[13:22] ShinKenDo: this here is a bridge
[13:22] Ciska Riverstone: other way round Shin?
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: its not the affecting, it's the permit...is an intention
[13:22] herman Bergson: We just use this means to communicate with eachother
[13:22] Kyra Neutron: the thing is
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: the permisivity is an intention,
[13:22] Sousinne Ceriano: I find this part of the dualist discourse rather tiring, merely an attempt to allow the theist faith to survive in an area where science has not yet set up its theories.
[13:22] Kyra Neutron: what you say VACUUM CLEANER
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: is your identity
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: yourself
[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: in my view and the myth that matter is without it, is for me promitive
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: your poor existance
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes, and to get the avatar to transfer our feelings require that the operator pushes the right buttins sort of
[13:23] herman Bergson: yes...only vacuum cleaners dont communicate...they have another function:-)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: or nothing wil happen
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sl is a comunication tool that do what we tell it to do just like any machine
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: i am truly sorry bejita
[13:23] Sousinne Ceriano: And beside, vacuum cleaners are loud, disgusting things.
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: but a moderate
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: person
[13:23] herman Bergson: But I think we are drifing away from the actual subject of today :-)
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: is lack of controlling its avatar
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: as a robotic handle
[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: i am talking about the matter that isn't tranformed by human,,,,, and dead
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): was waiting for that
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: you are just good as your poor ego
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: in that ava
[13:24] ShinKenDo: so 2 avas sits on a bench and wach a digital sunset.. dont we feel something in this scene?
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): trying to recall the point of the lecture
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: You feel it. The avatar doesn't.
[13:24] druth Vlodovic: ok, what do you mean by permissivity? the ability of a thing to exist within a certain environment?
[13:24] herman Bergson: The issue of today is that experiences may seem identical in a material way in two different persons...
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: sous...maybe you shall breath air more..and look at walls less?
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: the operator behind the machi does
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: machine
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: we live here...
[13:25] herman Bergson: but each person adds his subjectivity to it....
[13:25] herman Bergson: His "what is it like for me to hear…"
[13:25] ShinKenDo: we even say .. we are home...
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: if counsciousness merge from matter,,the exprience of the matter in term of counsciousness is,,, not something we can experiment,,,, as our
[13:25] herman Bergson: this means that in fact these mental states are NOT identical...
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: yes , we do experiment it
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: :) yesh
[13:26] Kyra Neutron: experiment
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: the subjectivity is often the result of differences in their senses (material) or previous experience (the mind conditioned to react differently to stimuli)
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: speaking about vacuum cleaners i really need to clean up this place tomorrowu usually do that fridays
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: but had a lot of friends here before so place is a bit extra messy now
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: heheh
[13:26] herman Bergson: This is a problem we'll have to deal with in further lectures...
[13:26] Doodus Moose: Professor - in stress school we called it "Actions, Beliefs & Consequences"
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: lol
[13:26] Kyra Neutron: like giving a drug to the monkey..and measure the body temperature?
[13:26] Mick Nerido: Is like lanquage if you don't understand it it is juat noise
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: sort of
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: weird..i never herad vacuum cleaners are capable of making friends :)
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: chinese for ex i cant make anything but strange sounds out from
[13:27] Doodus Moose: 2 people see the same action, they react from their individual life experience, then take separate consequences
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: no words
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: just sounds
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: lamp and fridge friends?
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:27] Mick Nerido: We all get the same sound waves but our minds interpit them differently
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its intresting that you brought that today herman, caus e yesterday i found a document on dennnets intentionality
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: didnt read it , only one chapter, yet
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: a useful tool simply
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Dennett is related to this subject too...
[13:28] herman Bergson: Chalmers even more....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the vaccum cleaner is my friend when it make cleanup easy and nice here around
[13:28] herman Bergson: If I am not mistaken...
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: And yet, there is little reason to assume that people feel, or see, different things when given identical stimuli.
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: wrong? the vacuum cleaner is "bejiita"
[13:28] herman Bergson: Chalmers even took it so far, that he suggested that our idea of reality isn't correct...
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: When someone is angry, they act the same way.
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: the comparative was made between dennets and fodor
[13:28] Doodus Moose: Sou - a friend of mine got in a bad auto accident, and responds to auto brake lights _very_ differently than the most of us
[13:29] herman Bergson: Consciousness should be a real part of it too...
[13:29] Kyra Neutron: yes..primitive feelings..
[13:29] druth Vlodovic: if they react differently then we can assume the experience is different, for instance, one person smelling mature might cover his nose and another will ignore the smell
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: yes the reality , concept is not correct, i also think that,,
[13:29] ShinKenDo: so now i know a avatar fairly well ... can determine if she is in a good or bad mood.... i learnd to read her usage of certain attachments.. which she choose un concourse… and i .. i behave in a way.. chose emoticons or as that fits my mood... so we "know each other" theoreticaly.. llike the deaf man who know all about hearing... so when i meat the person behind the ava ... will i sitt like this? or use a coat and a goggle on my neck? PERHAPS because ... its now a part of me.. yesterday i tried a new skin .. and shape... this was horrible i could not recognise my selfe
[13:29] herman Bergson: almost like a Cartesian substance
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: Different from what you would respond like if you had been through the same accident?
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hmm that we react to different things is for sure
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: probably, any experience is largely determined by the experiencer
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: well..this is cause we identify "selves" via forms
[13:30] herman Bergson: To say that A and B are identical means according to Leibniz his principle
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: for ex i love olives but a friend of me hates them
[13:30] herman Bergson: that every true statement of A is a true statement of B
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: as another likes to identify via "vacuum cleaner"
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: the experience my hot be similar, they subjectivity might not be
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:31] herman Bergson: and when subjectivity is added to our concept of consciousness....this creates a problem....
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: this also weird..to define..hate and love..
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: aren't they same?
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: well form the objectivation aspect and a subject object,,its a problem
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: That there is a filter of biology and previous experiences between us and the stimulus doesn't mean our responses aren't the same.
[13:31] herman Bergson: the material origine may look identical...we all have brains....
[13:31] druth Vlodovic: subjectivity might just be due to the complexity of the system
[13:32] herman Bergson: but we all have only OUR own brain
[13:32] Kyra Neutron: and where is it?
[13:32] Florencio Flores: hi qwark
[13:32] herman Bergson: In that sense no two brains are alike
[13:32] Mick Nerido: I like abstract expressionism you may hate it
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hi Qwark
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: since the subject brain,,is matter, where is the subjectivity if not in the matter itself
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes Alaya...THAT is the quintessential question....
[13:33] Florencio Flores: that was deeper alaya
[13:33] Qwark Allen: hello, finally i arrive in +/- time
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: )
[13:33] Doodus Moose: Alaya steers the boat back on course :-)
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: It is exactly there, in the matter itself.
[13:33] herman Bergson: therefore qualia are discussed and some even still claim that the mind has non-physical qualities
[13:33] Mick Nerido: Matter is mind?
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: .....
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Mind is matter. Everything is.
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: an easier question
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: what is non-physic
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: i think that the mind has both quality
[13:34] herman Bergson: If it was that simple that matter generates the mind....
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: not one or the other, in exclusion relation
[13:34] druth Vlodovic: people like to claim that there are non-material aspects of the brain because they like to believe in souls, and continuity after death
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: as waves and particles
[13:34] herman Bergson: matter is deterministic in its causality
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: energy
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: matter or not?
[13:34] ShinKenDo: i like to get the word Brain in contact with the word membrane in quantum physics...... strings who vibrate .. and form the matter are like single notes in a opera .. and brains are melodys maid of those notes... somehow selfconscious..
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: No. it is not, professor.
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: ....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: matter=energy
[13:34] herman Bergson: and we believe that we are NOT deterministic in our mind.....that we have a free will for instance
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: pure energy
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: the higgs boson is supposed to be the difference between what is matter and what is energy
[13:35] ShinKenDo: its both at the same time
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: energy vibrates and the frequency defines the matter..
[13:35] ShinKenDo: yes
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: light have no mass but other particles have mass = matter
[13:35] herman Bergson: We'll gonna discuss all this kind of questions in coming lectures
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: i believe in a certain freedom of the will but not a fukl one
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: interesting theory
[13:35] ShinKenDo: and matter defines the range of frequency
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: This is only a problem if you either only look at the macro scale or only the micro scale.
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: is very different indeed
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: But the brain is not only one or the other. The mid-level structure there MEANS something.
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: it comes from the idea that if we are deterministic then we are just machines, an un necessary connection to my mind
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: what a freak idea..
[13:36] Alaya Kumaki: the mecanical perspective is a made up anyways
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes druth...
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: Certainly, there are limits to our free will.
[13:37] Kyra Neutron: if a human can be anything similar..it is only animal...
[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll discuss free will extensively ....
[13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: I can't spontaneously turn into a bottle of cola, for example, no matter how badly I want to.
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: we do not become less human just because all we are is in this world (however large it may be)
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: that is a religious fear
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: to be able to act we must have knowledge sort of analogous to programming for a computer but a computer can not really think
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nvm
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: you simply deny what you made of
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: it just calculates numbers without knowing what it actually really does
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: And yet, with the right structure, we would have a computer that thought.
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: a computer just se lot of on and off
[13:38] herman Bergson: true bejiita....
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: 1 and 0
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: nothing more
[13:38] Mick Nerido: We are al on computers now
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: because
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: we cant calculate
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and predict
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Mick and WE do the thinking, not the computer:-)
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: or generate
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: It is not a question of "consciousness magic". Structure equals function... and that does not invalidate free will.
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: as a 4 gb ramed computer can does
[13:39] ShinKenDo: so ... somehow in order to survive we had to separate us from others? well ... actually we cant 2 persons GROW as one... would bee a interesting experiment.. Twins.. 24/7 conectet via modern communication equipment... so each see and hear what the other is dooing... and if the one is kissing a girl ... would the other not feel something =?
[13:39] Mick Nerido: It is an extension of our minds
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: "nothing more" implies that what we are is insufficient, shameful in fact
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the computer can do things very fast BUT it need a human to tell it EXACTLY what to do
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: no
[13:39] Florencio Flores: bye everyone
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: then it does that and nothing more
[13:39] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:39] Florencio Flores: need to leave
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: cu fo
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: bye flore
[13:39] Florencio Flores: ☆*¨¨* ♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''* ♥:*¨¨*☆
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: flo
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well a lot of ideas and remarks....
[13:40] Florencio Flores: bye bejiita, kyra and qwark and all
[13:40] ShinKenDo: bye florencio
[13:40] Alaya Kumaki: we can say that the pc, experiment ourself using it
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: it's similar to the argument as to why life "must" have a purpose, because without meaning it is meaningless, as though this is negative in some way
[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): confusion
[13:40] Mick Nerido: No Shinkendo
[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Florencio
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: computers are machines, they cant act on their own, unless a bug in the programming give the cpu wring instructions about what to do
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: can be really dangerous sometimes
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: but we created that pseudo subjective pc
[13:41] Kyra Neutron: alaya traces good :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I would suggest.....let's think it all over .....
[13:42] herman Bergson: My head is a a bit spinning now :-)
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I will reread the blog
[13:42] herman Bergson: So I would thank you all for your participation again....
[13:42] ShinKenDo: this is a rather un informed speaking Bejiita.. new sciences have discovered that CHAOS can happen if a cycle is repeated enough.. in a perfectly fine computer environment wich causes the program evolve on its self
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and try to make sense of the whole discussion
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: thank you herman
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes gemma....me too :-)
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: really interesting this time
[13:42] Alaya Kumaki: lol
[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:42] ShinKenDo: we call it Gost in the shell
[13:42] Qwark Allen: i got here late no idea about the subject
[13:43] Doodus Moose: that's why i come here - to get my brain beat up.
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: bye gemma
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ehehhe
[13:43] Mick Nerido: Thanks everyone
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: there is not a whole one,,,, just a partial one, me think
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: a few good spins
[13:43] herman Bergson: haha Doodus :-)
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: aa about malicious computers, here is a really good example of computers wreaking havoc with disastrous result
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
[13:43] ShinKenDo: Thank you Herman
[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: thanx hermann - bye all
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: not malicious only...
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: see yu next time herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: Bye Alaya :-)