375: Consciousness and Subjectivity

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

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

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

Previous lecture I elaborated on the qualitative feature of consciousness. Closely related to this feature is the fact that conscious states only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal subject. In that sense, they are essentially subjective.

When two people listen to a concert or look at a painting their experiences may be identical qualitatively in the sense, what is it like to listen to a concert or look at a painting.

But additionally both persons add their subjectivity to that experience, which makes the experiences unique for every person.

Because conscious states are subjective in this sense, they have what I will call a first-person ontology, as opposed to the third-person ontology of mountains and molecules, which can exist even if no living creatures exist.

Subjective conscious states have a first-person ontology ("ontology" here means mode of existence) because they only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal agent.

They are experienced by some "I" that has the experience, and it is in that sense that they have a first-person ontology.

Many philosophers and scientists also 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.

It looks as if there is no objective knowledge possible of consciousness. However this is a mistake, caused by the ambiguous use of the subjective - objective distinction.

In one sense, the epistemic sense ("epistemic" here means having to do with knowledge), science is indeed objective.

Scientists seek truths that are equally accessible to any competent observer and that are independent of the feelings and attitudes of the experimenters in question.

"Rutte is the prime minister of the Netherlands" and "Rutte is a good prime minister" are two statements. The first one is epistemic objective, the second one is subjective, because it is a personal opinion.

But there is another sense of the objective-subjective distinction, and that is the ontological sense ("ontological" here means having to do with existence).

Some entities, such as pains, tickles, and itches, have a subjective mode of existence, in the sense that they exist only as experienced by a conscious subject.

Others, such as mountains, molecules and tectonic plates have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence does not depend on any consciousness.

From this we can conclude that the ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain.

Although the physician does not feel your pain, which is a subjective experience, he yet can have objective knowledge about your pain and its causes and help you.

Thus the subjectivity of consciousness does not exclude the possibility of objective knowledge about consciousness.


The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:20] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:20] Qwark Allen: seems we got back to dualism
[13:21] herman Bergson: The basic idea here is that if consciousness the result is of a biological process in the brain we can gain objective knowledge about the subjective mental states
[13:21] herman Bergson: No Qwark...
[13:21] herman Bergson: Only when you would agree with David Chalmers' ideas.
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yeah, Im not sure what dualism is
[13:22] Qwark Allen: objectivity/subjectivity
[13:22] herman Bergson: Dualism means that we have a body ...material....and a mind.....not material
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm something to do with Descartes as I remember
[13:23] herman Bergson: The dualist claims thus that ontologically there are two substances in the world...
[13:23] herman Bergson: material and mental substances
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Merlin that is Descartes..
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): mm good :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: This idea of dualism is abandoned by almost all philosophers of mind and neuroscientists and so on
[13:24] herman Bergson: However David Chalmers is one of the few who defends some kind of dualism
[13:24] Mick Nerido: If we could mind read would that prove dualism or objectivism?
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: it was too easy probably
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most people still have a dualist idea about body and mind Lizzy
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): last time you told us we don't have a mind..and now you do..
[13:25] herman Bergson: while among scientists this idea is discarded completely
[13:26] herman Bergson: looks puzzled at Beertje
[13:26] herman Bergson: I hope I didnt Beertje
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you did
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: how can science be objective but the scientists are not?
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): hahaha... look in the notes
[13:26] Qwark Allen: there was something about its definition
[13:26] herman Bergson: What I may have said is that we better can use the term consciousness than mind
[13:26] herman Bergson: because mind has so many meanings
[13:26] Qwark Allen: not mind, but conscience, i think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But if you take mind to be synonymous with consciousness there is no problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: I prefer consciousness because it also is a neurobiological concept
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: wordbaggage
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....and the word Mind has a long history in philosophy
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what is consciousness to a neurobiologist?
[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Druth
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think the picture answers your question
[13:30] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:30] Qwark Allen: Hey! misty
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: hello Misty
[13:30] Jaelle Faerye: hiya Misty
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hugss everyone
[13:30] herman Bergson: Hello Misty ㋡
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: pretty :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: fascinating picture isnt it Druth?
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): 13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:31] herman Bergson: as I said....
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: hmm good point beertje
[13:32] herman Bergson: I want to drop the WORD mind....not the phenomenon which we call mind or consciousness ㋡
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): confusing...
[13:32] Clerisse Beeswing: like braintease
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: "for everything there is a season, and a purpose under heaven" :-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...I understand
[13:33] herman Bergson: just to prevent confusion I prefer to use the word consciousness above mind
[13:33] Claudei: Hello
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: hi Claudei
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hello Claudia
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: hello Claudei
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: hi Claudei
[13:34] Clerisse Beeswing: Hello clauden
[13:34] herman Bergson: So our point today is that we can have objective knowlege of subjective experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but there are strict limits I suppose
[13:35] herman Bergson: In fact is that what all neuroscientists do every day when studying the brain/consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Any questions?
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds for me as if we would describe consciousness with its borders without knowing the inner area
[13:37] herman Bergson: we dont know much about consciousness Sybyle....
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thats what I got, Herman :))
[13:37] herman Bergson: What we know is that it is generated by the brain....
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): its kinda hard to concentrate :)
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: so far I can follow
[13:38] herman Bergson: we know about a correlation between subjective experiences and objective fMRI scannner results...
[13:38] herman Bergson: the picture behind me is an interesting example of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: but what we absolutely don't know is how the material brain can generate that what we experience as consciousness
[13:39] herman Bergson: but philosophically ...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is....
[13:39] herman Bergson: what we call consciousness....in what sense does it exist?
[13:39] herman Bergson: what IS it....
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): physically, no?
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: good question..sighs
[13:40] Mick Nerido: and why should it exist?
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): a function of brain activity
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Physically..in a material sense
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Its a mysterious thing
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): what other sense is there?
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: and does it exist in other places in the universe or just on planet earth?
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): What about plants
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is that a stupid question?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Francis Crick , I think it was, suggested that it was the 40Hz eleoctroning vibration or something like that in the brain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: No Merlin that is not a stupid question...
[13:41] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): but if fMRI shows it as physical activity, what's the issue?
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aaah ty.
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): there are no stupid questions at all
[13:42] herman Bergson: The issue is, Penelope, that the fMRI scan shows only part of consciousness
[13:42] herman Bergson: For example....
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some plants do sense things..so there could be a form of plant conscious.
[13:42] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): so ok, in ten years, they'll make a better MRI :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: there never has shown up an "I", a "Self" on an fMRI scan
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like chaos theory
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the issue is that people think they are their consciousness and want to know themselves as something other than the effect of physical processes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Druth ..and reality is that they aren't
[13:43] herman Bergson: We are the result of physical processes
[13:43] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): agreed :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: But indeed many people have great difficulty with that....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: it is like the question: where ends the universe and what is on the other side
[13:44] herman Bergson: due to religious ideas
[13:44] herman Bergson: nice question Lizzy....yes!
[13:44] Mick Nerido: The physical world behaves very strange at the micro and macro levels
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean with strange Mick
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: So is consciousness something the evolve as a protection process?
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Quantum physics for example
[13:45] herman Bergson: You only can qualify something as strange when you have a standard for normal
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahh..yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There seems to be something with matter that confuses us...
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): ooh mysty, YES
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): yes yes!
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): smart!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Laws of nature enable us to predict every outcome of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: however ...Quantum Physics seems to show us that we cant predict everythinng of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: that there is a basic randomness
[13:47] Mick Nerido: The material world is filled with mystery, Black holes, consciousness etc...
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: My consciousness is a black hole right now and a mystery I am still awake :-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:48] herman Bergson: Just realize that what we call science these days is hardly 300 years old
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Misty I like that!
[13:49] herman Bergson: that compared with a history of million years of the homo sapiens in evolution
[13:49] Claudei: homo sapiens is not a million years old
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): did they never think about this matter in earlier years?
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: but his evolution
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: or her evolution
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: and so much that we have learned of humans has only really been in the last 100 years or less.
[13:50] Claudei: how far into species evolution are you going
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: in other cultures they didn't have science?
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first toolmakers existed 2.4 million years ago
[13:50] herman Bergson: Use of fire 1 million years ago
[13:50] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): hey that's a good question Lizzy asked
[13:50] Claudei: he wasn't homo sapiens
[13:50] Qwark Allen: how you know that?
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is a good question indeed Lizzy...
[13:51] herman Bergson: To give you an example....
[13:51] Mick Nerido: i think he means our direct ancestors
[13:51] herman Bergson: till 1100 A.D the Arab culture was far more developed in science than the european...
[13:51] herman Bergson: they had great mathematicians....
[13:51] Qwark Allen: there was homo sapiens half million years ago
[13:52] herman Bergson: Then is vanished...
[13:52] herman Bergson: and the knowledge was through Spain exported to Europe
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: even the egytians had, think of the pyramides
[13:52] Mick Nerido: all our tool have extended our senses and expanded or conciousness
[13:52] herman Bergson: The Chinese had great science...
[13:52] Qwark Allen: and much before that
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but had they great philosophers too?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just their knowledge didn`t got to our days
[13:53] herman Bergson: But the europeans had some aggressive exploring drive...
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just in time rodney
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: So the fact that some animals also use tools.. does that give credit that they might also have consciousness?
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: hi Rodney
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Misty...to some extend certainly
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle
[13:54] herman Bergson: There are even animals that have self awareness....recognize themselves in a mirror
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Rod :)
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Lizzy
[13:55] herman Bergson: Welcome Rodney..:)
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or duck and run when they have been caught doing something bad!!! Bad conscious... Sorry, couldnt resist.
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hello Rodney
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: but animals that aren't able to recognize themselves have individual beheviours
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: it'll be another blow to our ego to have to share consciouness with animals, then bugs :)
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Beertie
[13:55] herman Bergson: I was just ready to end the discussion... ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Great class thanks Herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Hi Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very good
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why is it a blow to our ego ?
[13:56] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...we have a high esteem of ourselves indeed due to our consciousness
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we are animals too
[13:56] Qwark Allen: see what i mean, by just in time rodney
[13:56] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:56] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:56] Clerisse Beeswing: great class herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Beertje....don't underestimate the chimpansees ^_^
[13:57] herman Bergson: So...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: well, I suspect low esteem, otherwise it wouldn't bother us so much
[13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: Lots to think about and I only got part of the class.
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thanks Herman.. much to think about :)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: we just share 99.5% of our genes with them
[[13:57] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..and we behave like them too :-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: eehehhe indeed
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....
[13:58] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: wow...so soon
[13:58] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:58] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday it is!
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: I am in hurry, .. good night everybody!
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight every one
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: night Lizzy
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: waves*
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Lizzy and Beertje..TC
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: Night Beertje :)
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): waves:)))
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: and anyone else :-)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Anyone have notes on the first part?
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: it will be on the blog, Misty
[14:00] herman Bergson: I have a blog Misty
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ah ok. ty. Sorry for being late, but had appt with oral surg and just got home and straight to computer.
[14:00] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have the notes from 1 week ago
[14:01] herman Bergson: url is in my profile
[14:01] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I dont know if that that was the first one
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, knew about the blog, just dense today LOL
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: I can go back and read up on old lectures :-)
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY Merline :-)
[14:02] Mistyowl Warrhol: humm, Merlin ! Sorry for mistype.
[14:03] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): :)
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC all. til we meet again.. hugs :-)
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: you too
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[14:04] druth Vlodovic: have fun guys
[14:04] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, I must go too. Bye all.
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ty Sybyle and I will start readin today lol
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Merlin
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: bye Druth
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Merlin and Druth
[14:05] herman Bergson: Bye Druth]
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: bye Herman
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious how it will continue, Herman
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: thanks again
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: see you next week :)
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: good bye :)

334: The materialist Brain 2

To say that everything is material sound rather simple and obvious. However, in the hands of philosophers such a statements shows to be not so simple as it looks like.

Philosophers and scientists have had various views regarding the constitution and behavior of material objects

and over whether every material thing is a body, or whether forces, or waves, or fields of force are also realities in their own right.

To begin with we could define a material thing as a being possessing many physical properties and no other properties.

A possible list of properties: position in space and time, size, shape, duration, mass, velocity, solidity, inertia, electric charge, spin, rigidity, temperature, hardness, magnetic field intensity, and the like.

Note that I say at the end of the list "and the like". We can not exclude the possibility that we discover new physical properties.

In other words, we have no fully determinate answer to what a material thing is. So what is a materialist claiming, when he says "there only exists matter"?

This looks like a problem for a materialist, but it isn't that bad. There is a broad consensus on which properties are physical properties.

Therefore when a new property would be discovered it would readily classified as a physical property and not as some anomaly. If that were the case more research is required only.

For extreme versions of materialism the psychological characteristics people ascribe to themselves and to one another—consciousness, purposiveness, aspiration, desire, for example—are not considered to be physical properties.

This is an interesting point, for just suppose that we say that consciousness IS a property of matter. The contemporary philosopher of mind, David Chalmers (1966- …) for instance, holds that view.

We will discuss his ideas later. The term that goes along with such views is panpsychism, or as Chalmers calls it: "panprotopsychism".

As I remarked in the previous lecture, for the materialist there is no second class of nonmaterial beings, like Descartes had suggested.

There are no incorporeal souls or spirits, no spiritual principalities or powers, no angels or devils, no demiurges and no gods , if these are conceived as immaterial entities. Hence, nothing that happens can be attributed to the action of such beings.

An other fundamental point of view of the materialist is: “Everything that can be explained can be explained on the basis of laws involving only the relevant physical conditions.”

This too leads to interesting discussions, for you are ready now to conclude that a materialist must be a determinist too.

Determinism means that everything that happens is a link in an infinite chain of causes and effects. If that is so, then whatever we do is caused too, not freely chosen.

Here we touch on the issue of the existence of free will. Due to neurobiological findings nowadays you hear the claim, that free will is only an illusion. We definitely will discuss this matter too!

Recently, the appeal of determinism has been weakened by the development and success of quantum theory, and many contemporary materialists are not committed to determinism.

Materialism has been, traditionally, a minority view, indeed a rather daring and scandalous one, but it has made considerable progress over the past century, particularly among educated European peoples.

So it will be interesting to pay some attention to the history of materialism too and learn why it has gotten a broader acceptance today.


The Discussion


[2011/06/09 13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you..
[2011/06/09 13:21] herman Bergson: The floor is yours now....:-)
[2011/06/09 13:21] Bejiita Imako: oki
[2011/06/09 13:22] Zevio Droz: how does materialism imply determinism
[2011/06/09 13:22] herman Bergson: causality Zevio...
[2011/06/09 13:23] Mick Nerido: The material world is also energy as in E=MCsquared
[2011/06/09 13:23] herman Bergson: every cause has its fixed effect
[2011/06/09 13:23] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:23] herman Bergson: if the effect is a fixed thing ..there is no choice...
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: no free will
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: .
[2011/06/09 13:24] Zevio Droz: have they found particles or the like that act completely randomly?
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: yes..
[2011/06/09 13:25] herman Bergson: quantum mechanics
[2011/06/09 13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is a good question zevio
[2011/06/09 13:25] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:25] Zevio Droz: neurobiology
[2011/06/09 13:26] herman Bergson: well...the basic idea is...
[2011/06/09 13:26] herman Bergson: that the behavior of some atom or neutron...I dont know..is literally unpredictable..
[2011/06/09 13:27] herman Bergson: it will decay..at some moment..but there is no physical law to predict that moment
[2011/06/09 13:27] herman Bergson: completely random...
[2011/06/09 13:27] Mick Nerido: uncertinty principle?
[2011/06/09 13:27] Bejiita Imako: its like schrödinger's cat
[2011/06/09 13:27] Bejiita Imako: u don't know the answer until you look but then you also affect
[2011/06/09 13:28] herman Bergson: so In neurobiology they refer to that basic atomic feature...
[2011/06/09 13:28] Zevio Droz: so are you talking about what consciousness is made out of?
[2011/06/09 13:28] Mick Nerido: Yes Bejiita, you cause a change just by looking
[2011/06/09 13:29] Bejiita Imako: thats why quantum encryption is unbreakable
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: We'll discourse that issue when we are dealing with free will
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: Consciousness is on the menu Zevio...
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: But not yet being served :-)
[2011/06/09 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: ;p
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: it's possible to not have free will and free will still be possible
[2011/06/09 13:30] herman Bergson: First we have to understand contemporary thought about materialism...
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: ok
[2011/06/09 13:30] Alaya Kumaki: on the menu, but beeing created, maybe with all medias information we get a materially made grip to all what is going on
[2011/06/09 13:31] herman Bergson: It is fundament to our quest into the Mystery of the Brain
[2011/06/09 13:31] Zevio Droz: i'm trying to apply materialism to internal matters, did you have something else in mind?
[2011/06/09 13:32] herman Bergson: What do you mean Zevio?
[2011/06/09 13:32] Zevio Droz: if we live in a universe made solely of matter and all is determined i would like to know how that affects the mind, but i was wondering if you wanted to go in a different direction
[2011/06/09 13:32] Zevio Droz: and what that direction is
[2011/06/09 13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hope it will all be clear at another class or classes
[2011/06/09 13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but as usual more questions :-)
[2011/06/09 13:34] herman Bergson: the issue of determinism and free will will be a whole chapter here in class
[2011/06/09 13:34] Zevio Droz: i'm confused about what the current discussion is
[2011/06/09 13:34] herman Bergson: Materialism...
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: the statement that there is only one thing in this word: matter
[2011/06/09 13:35] Zevio Droz: do you have a question for the class concerning materialism that we can discuss?
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: I guess you missed a few classes Zevio ^_*
[2011/06/09 13:35] Zevio Droz: oh i see
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: Doesnt work that way....
[2011/06/09 13:36] herman Bergson: This is not a place for endless discussions about some question...
[2011/06/09 13:36] herman Bergson: I am teaching a course about the Mystery of the Brain...
[2011/06/09 13:36] Mick Nerido: The new cern accelerator will give us more information soon
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: fully been running all day now
[2011/06/09 13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: Or DOOM US ALL! DOOM, I TELL YOU!!!
[2011/06/09 13:37] Alaya Kumaki: punishment and hope are the old ways to learn mick now, its not as that since we know more
[2011/06/09 13:37] herman Bergson: That would be great Mick if it helps us here :-)
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: it works great
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: we'll see
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[2011/06/09 13:37] Zevio Droz: one reason i doubt materialism is near death experiences
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: I am keeping an eye in that thing
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: call me superstitious
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: but there are people having really profound experiences either immediately before death or after death
[2011/06/09 13:38] herman Bergson: ok Zevio..you are superstiscious ^_^
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• LOL ‚ô•
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we always go back to the same questions
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: heh
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 'or new ones
[2011/06/09 13:38] Qwark Allen: hypersticious
[2011/06/09 13:39] herman Bergson: Yes ..Gemma ..isnt it funny..:-)
[2011/06/09 13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: While in a near death experience, you still have all your memories, your associations and so on. Why should experiencing something like that mean it's true? Do our senses truly go that far?
[2011/06/09 13:39] Zevio Droz: it doesn't mean it's true, but it means that the brain is able to create a vivid reality independent of the physical world
[2011/06/09 13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: After all, your brain is breaking down. A few weird experiences should not be unexpected...
[2011/06/09 13:40] Zevio Droz: just as vivid as life
[2011/06/09 13:40] herman Bergson: The near death experience is already completely understood in neurobiology...
[2011/06/09 13:40] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Or... just as vivid as your imagination, fired by neurotransmitter bursts from dying neurons
[2011/06/09 13:40] herman Bergson: They can give you that expierience in no time with electrodes on your head
[2011/06/09 13:41] Mick Nerido: A stiff drink works also
[2011/06/09 13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: It's what XTC does... it fires your neuronal supply of transmitter substance.
[2011/06/09 13:41] herman Bergson: the idea that you experience something supernatural or so in a near death experience is complete nonsense
[2011/06/09 13:41] Zevio Droz: ok then how can a human distinguish any sort of "supernatural" experience if it can all be blamed on the brain
[2011/06/09 13:41] Zevio Droz: so then you're a materialist
[2011/06/09 13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: I am so glad you asked that, Zevio =)
[2011/06/09 13:42] herman Bergson: start reading to begin with lecture 266 Zevio :-)
[2011/06/09 13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: The answer is, of course, that EVERYTHING we experience is experienced directly because of our brain.
[2011/06/09 13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: And if we can experience it, it's not supernatural at all.
[2011/06/09 13:43] Mick Nerido: What about dreams?
[2011/06/09 13:43] herman Bergson: there is no supernatural....
[2011/06/09 13:43] herman Bergson: Dreams? Random brain activity while sleeping Mick
[2011/06/09 13:43] Sousinne Ceriano: Whether it's the voice of God, near death experiences, or oneness with the ALL, or anything else.
[2011/06/09 13:43] Zevio Droz: call it the natural then
[2011/06/09 13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: Indeed.
[2011/06/09 13:44] herman Bergson: All rubbish Sousinne :-)
[2011/06/09 13:44] Zevio Droz: well then thats the discussion then
[2011/06/09 13:44] herman Bergson: We have to stick to the facts...
[2011/06/09 13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: And if we're at "natural" rather than "supernatural", then considering the case for the existence of a God becomes MUCH easier.
[2011/06/09 13:45] herman Bergson: With all due respect Sousinne
[2011/06/09 13:45] herman Bergson: But that weird idea...people call god...where does it come from???
[2011/06/09 13:46] Qwark Allen: must be very old idea
[2011/06/09 13:46] herman Bergson: Except of course it is part of our culture historically
[2011/06/09 13:46] herman Bergson: Bu tthe idea makes no sense at all...
[2011/06/09 13:46] druth Vlodovic: human nature to fear the unknown and want methods of controlling the world
[2011/06/09 13:46] Mick Nerido: God only knows
[2011/06/09 13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: The human brain has evolved to be able to feel AWE. Awe is something that puts us in mind of belonging, purpose and group-think.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: oh yes Druth,,,,that is of course a reason
[2011/06/09 13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: It makes us feel small, irrelevant... and thus makes us ONLY a part of something bigger.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: hold on....
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: That idea...
[2011/06/09 13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: It probably has been important for some reason or other.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: that we feel small...
[2011/06/09 13:48] druth Vlodovic: or makes us feel integrated with something bigger, in the same scale as the world, or even bigger
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Well depends on whether you are looking out at space or down at insects
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): insects*
[2011/06/09 13:48] herman Bergson: yes Gemma :-)
[2011/06/09 13:48] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:48] Bejiita Imako: yes
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): or microbes in a scope
[2011/06/09 13:48] Qwark Allen: good point, i was only thinking in space
[2011/06/09 13:48] herman Bergson: Our brain produces all the ideas we have...
[2011/06/09 13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: As we grew up as a species, we clothed the feeling of awe in spiritual, then religious, terms.
[2011/06/09 13:49] Qwark Allen: now i feel a gigant! ty gemma :-)
[2011/06/09 13:49] herman Bergson: the God idea is a way to understand life..feel comfortable with it...
[2011/06/09 13:49] Sousinne Ceriano: Ending up with the concept of GOD.
[2011/06/09 13:49] Qwark Allen: :-)
[2011/06/09 13:49] herman Bergson: We can accept the most cruel experiences with the words..Yes ..it was the will of god...
[2011/06/09 13:49] Bejiita Imako: hahah
[2011/06/09 13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: But the words are meaningless.
[2011/06/09 13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: The feeling is the relevant part.
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): perhaps to you but not to others
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): depends on belief
[2011/06/09 13:50] druth Vlodovic: easier, for me, to say "that just happened, there is no god causing it" but I walked a long way to get there
[2011/06/09 13:50] herman Bergson: That is the point Gemma..
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right
[2011/06/09 13:51] Alaya Kumaki: why do we need to define, what it is, when there is nothing to say, but to observe what we can and let go what we can't see
[2011/06/09 13:51] Bejiita Imako: aaa guess so
[2011/06/09 13:51] Zevio Droz: the only real "evidence" is experiential evidence
[2011/06/09 13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No? I would think me and they feel the same thing, we need it just the same... but we dress that feeling in different clothes.
[2011/06/09 13:51] Zevio Droz: it depends on if you find that valid or not
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: seems we are all mindless
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: no one so far could measure a mind
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: yet we have one
[2011/06/09 13:52] herman Bergson: We will get to that Qwark....
[2011/06/09 13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: Zevio: experiential evidence THAT YOU CAN SHARE.
[2011/06/09 13:52] herman Bergson: Will be a long way perhaps..but we get to that!
[2011/06/09 13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: Feeling the touch of God proves only that your brain is capable of giving you that experience.
[2011/06/09 13:52] druth Vlodovic: I have to be off, have fun all, and thank you Herman
[2011/06/09 13:53] herman Bergson: Be well Druth
[2011/06/09 13:53] Qwark Allen: not because our rudimentary science can`t explain or test, doesn`t mean it is not logical or that not exist
[[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: i think the human species is too young to jump to conclusions about these things
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: That is a tricky statement Qwark....
[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: we think we know everything at this point
[2011/06/09 13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure there is more to discover
[2011/06/09 13:54] Qwark Allen: sometimes i see us here saying that if we can test, it`s real, if not it`s a question of believe
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: To say that...what science cant explain can yet exist...
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: that is opening Pandora's box..
[2011/06/09 13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): well it is
[2011/06/09 13:54] Qwark Allen: but the science we have it`s not that sophisticated
[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:54] Sousinne Ceriano: professor...
[2011/06/09 13:55] Qwark Allen: will be in the futur
[2011/06/09 13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: You can still make epidemiological research.
[2011/06/09 13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is true too
[2011/06/09 13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): both are true
[2011/06/09 13:55] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: If God is claimed to heal the sick... we can test what frequency it happens at.
[2011/06/09 13:56] herman Bergson: Based on Qwark 's statement...everything can exist..whatever you think of
[2011/06/09 13:56] Mick Nerido: My senses tell me the earth is flat...
[2011/06/09 13:56] Sousinne Ceriano: There are methods that do not require us to understand a concept to measure it.
[2011/06/09 13:56] herman Bergson: It never happens Sousinne
[2011/06/09 13:56] Qwark Allen: +/-
[2011/06/09 13:57] Zevio Droz: it is a pandoras box
[2011/06/09 13:57] Sousinne Ceriano: It doesn't. But if there was a significant difference between, say, believers and nonbelievers in "miraculous recoveries", there would be a case for God.
[2011/06/09 13:57] herman Bergson: On of the best discussions ever, my friends...
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson looks at his watch...
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh have to go!
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss class
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: ok
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thurs
[2011/06/09 13:58] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you professor, and sorry for being late.
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu
[2011/06/09 13:58] Zevio Droz: :)
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): maybe tuesday depending
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation..
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: nice once again
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: „ã°
[2011/06/09 13:58] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: interesting subjects
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: You are excused sousinne :-)
[2011/06/09 13:58] MultiMuse: thank you for the lecture.
[2011/06/09 13:58] Zevio Droz: seeya herman
[2011/06/09 13:59] Sousinne Ceriano: bye people