skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Maybe it is due to Descartes (1596 - 1650) that we are talking about mind stuff, asking the question what the mind is made of.
But perhaps that is the wrong question in this philosophy of mind. For instance, practically all cars have carburetors.A carburetor is a device which combines petrol with air and delivers the resulting mixture to the engine.
There is one in almost every car, but I guess not two are alike. They can have all kinds of shapes, been made out of all kinds of materials.
But is that of primary importance? To question what stuff a carburetor is made of or how it is constructed? Isn't it more relevant to focus on what a carburetor does?
An antibiotic is a substance which does a certain job: it kills disease-causing bacteria without doing serious harm to the patient.
Penicillin kills disease-forming bacteria without doing undue harm to the patient; consequently it's an antibiotic.
Erythromycine also kills disease-causing bacteria without doing serious harm to the patient; consequently it too is an antibiotic. However, penicillin and erythromycine have quite different chemical structures.
Like with carburetors we can say that antibiotics are multiply realized, that we have multiple instantiations of them. To understand what is happening in the world, the right question is not "What stuff is it made of?" but "What job does it do?"
When we talk about ontology, the philosophy of what IS, we are easily inclined to think that what IS, is built of matter. Thus is overlooked that what IS equally are processes, actions, functions. And there was FUNCTIONALISM!
“Functionalism” is one of the major proposals that have been offered as solutions to the mind-body problem.
Solutions to the mind-body problem usually try to answer questions such as: What is the ultimate nature of the mental?
At the most general level, what makes a mental state mental? Or more specifically, what do thoughts have in common in virtue of which they are thoughts? That is, what makes a thought a thought? What makes a pain a pain?
Cartesian dualism said the ultimate nature of the mental was to be found in a special mental substance.
Behaviorism identified mental states with behavioral dispositions; physicalism, in its most influential version, identifies mental states with brain states.
Functionalism says that mental states are constituted by their causal relations to one another and to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.
Functionalism is one of the major theoretical developments of twentieth-century analytic philosophy, and provides the conceptual underpinnings of much work in cognitive science.
Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of mind and its processes. It examines what cognition is, what it does and how it works.
It includes research on how information is processed (in faculties such as perception, language, memory, reasoning, and emotion), represented, and transformed in behaviour, (human or other animal) nervous system or machine (e.g., computer).
Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.
In coming lectures we'll learn what part philosophy and in particular functionalism plays in this interdisciplinary world.
The Discussion
[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:21] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: Bravo!
[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you Qwark
[13:21] Farv Hallison: Functionalism begs the Ontological question.
[13:21] herman Bergson: Explain Farv....
[13:22] Qwark Allen: seems "everyday" more disciplines are kind melting in each others, making a better view of "reality"
[13:22] Farv Hallison: you change the question rather than answer it.
[13:22] Qwark Allen: the perception we have today of it, is so much diferent, it was 50 years ago
[13:22] Qwark Allen: just to do not go, more far in past
[13:22] herman Bergson: well.... for the moment it sounds to me more as an other approach to the ontological question...
[13:23] herman Bergson: in fact you could say that functionalism isn't much concerned about ontology...
[13:24] herman Bergson: when you define a mental state in terms of what is does, it isn't important what the material basis is
[13:24] herman Bergson: functionalism is therefor even neutral regarding materialism or dualism...
[13:25] herman Bergson: And yes qwark you are quite right about that....
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: we can take an analogy, an electric motor
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: can be made of different materials
[13:25] herman Bergson: My perception of the philosophy of mind has changed so greatly in relation to what I knew in 1977
[13:25] Farv Hallison: that's good, you leave open the question of whether matter is an emergent property of the mind.
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: for dc or ac and be made in different shapes and so
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: but they all do one thing the same
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: transfer electric energi to mechanical movement 8rotation)ö
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: rotation
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Farv....functionalism wouldn't question that
[13:27] herman Bergson: We'll go in to much more detail in next lectures....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: i guess its sort of the same with the mind in speaking of functionalism
[13:27] herman Bergson: functionalism is a dominating view, these days...
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Transportation can be walking flying driving not at all the same
[13:27] herman Bergson: there you find the mind / computer analogy....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:28] herman Bergson: the mind as software and the brain as hardwear...
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: but you come from point A to point B, the result is the same as if you use a bycicle
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes exactly
[13:28] herman Bergson: We'll come to talk about that…don't worry...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hmm well but for certain distances like my trip to turkey before bike wouldn't be very practical
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: but basically yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: This functionalism is a kind of answer on the identity theory...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: its about moving around in different ways
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: lets change the example
[13:30] Mick Nerido: we don't know how a mint works
[13:30] Mick Nerido: mind
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: a bomb destroys as well as a flood..but they are different
[13:30] herman Bergson: ok Sybyle
[13:30] Farv Hallison savors mint.
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: both generates a pusch , a force
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: push
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: but the difference is greater as between bike and plane
[13:31] Mick Nerido: I have to leave early, sorry
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: very, the result is that you move i n both cases but a plane can move over water and MUCH faster
[13:31] herman Bergson: ok...next lecture I'll explain in detail in what way functionalism thinks to be an answer to limitations of the identity theory...
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: i think it is the result what counts and not how we reach it
[13:31] Farv Hallison: nice seeing you Mick
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: tc Mick
[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: tc mick
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy, such an observation is in line with functionalism...
[13:32] Mick Nerido: See you next class thats all Herman also
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: you cannot divide it completely, Lizzy, I think
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: cu Mick
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well, don't worry....
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: if you look at the aim..yes
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: i forgive you Sybyle, giggle
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but if you ask if the aim was planned for example
[13:33] herman Bergson: I will gonna be a pretty complex and abstract issue, this functionalism...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: sighs
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: thx Lizzy
[13:33] herman Bergson: It
[13:34] herman Bergson: I am not sure about is 100% myself, how to interpret it....
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: i a bit tricky indeed
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: its
[13:34] Farv Hallison: what is tricky?
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: philosophy
[13:34] herman Bergson: Main point is: Is it an answer to our questions about the mind - body problem...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: ; )
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: how to attack this subject
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: but will be interesting
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: i think i get the point so far anyway
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: s i said about the motors before
[13:35] herman Bergson: especially because this functionalist view is widely accepted....
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: they can be made way different for ac and dc but do the same thing basically
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: every theory ignores important matters i think
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: electricity becomes rotation
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: but of course, as always in philosophy.....it comes in a number of flavors ㋡
[13:36] Qwark Allen: heeheh
[13:36] Farv Hallison: mint I hope
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: strawberry I prefer
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:36] herman Bergson: So..I would suggest.....take a good night rest and be here next Thursday for the next lecture on this subject ^_^
[13:37] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:37] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: great start Herman
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: will be interesting
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Professor!
[13:37] herman Bergson: thank you for your participation...
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Professor
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: nice Herman
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:37] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goed Gedaan Jochie!!
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸
What are mental states? When we ask that question we immediately discover that language by its structure forces us in certain directions.
In the previous lecture we discovered that the asymmetry between the statements " I feel a pain" and "He feels a pain" causes considerable philosophical problems.
In the l920s and l930s,a group of philosophers called the 'Vienna Circle' developed a new account of the meaning of a statement.
A statement is a sentence which claims that the world is a certain way. "The Eiffeltower is in Paris" and "The moon is made of cheese" are both statements.
The first makes a (true) claim about the location of a famous landmark; the second makes a (false) claim about the constitution of the moon.
The theory of the meaning of statements advocated by the Vienna Circle is called verificationism. On this view, the meaning of any statement is its method of verification.
Members of the Vienna Circle insisted that the only way to show that a statement is true is by making sensory observation.
That rules out all First Person Perspective statements, for they are not publicly accessible for verification. So how do we establish the meaning and thence the truth of mental statements.
Another argument, that changed the character of the mind - body debate came from Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) with his private language argument.
If Dualism were right, then my believing, seeing, imagining, and loving would be essentially inner and private, inaccessible to anyone else.
But that very claim was expressed using words we all know: believing, seeing, imagining, loving.
Words are learned by correcting incorrect uses and praising correct uses. We must have learned these words in that manner.
But if Dualism were right, these things would be inner and private, inaccessible to anyone else. If so, we could never have learned these words. We did learn those words; therefore, Dualism must be wrong.
If our language of mental states is not about some private inner experience, what is it about? One proposal is that talk of mental states is really a way of talking about behavior.
And this proposal is in perfect harmony with the method of verification to establish the meaning and truth of mental statements: we only need publicly observable behavior.
Thus the debate on the mind - body problem moved from the question about the stuff the mental is made of to establishing the meaning of mental statements.
This gave rise to what was called Analytical or Philosophical Behaviorism: the view that mental concepts are definable in behavioral terms, or dispositions to behave in a certain way under certain circumstances.
In psychology this philosophy was translated into methodological behaviorism by B. F Skinner (1904–1990).,What went on inside a person was not a subject for science.
The organism in interaction with its environment receives stimuli and produces responses. Thus the goal of psychology became the study of the relation between stimuli and responses.
Thus the mental seemed to be perfectly translated into sensory observable facts. The mind grasped by science.
However, as you may well expect, philosophical behaviorism wasn't the answer, nor in psychology methodological behaviorism.
There are serious arguments against behaviorism and I guess, that the most serious one is, that it had no answer to the question "What is consciousness?"
So…we are still in business as philosophers.
The Discussion
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:22] herman Bergson: The floor is yours
[13:22] herman Bergson: if you have questions or remarks
[13:23] You decline The Philosophy Class from A group member named herman Bergson.
[13:23] Paolo Rousselot: just notice the differences between exterior & interior observations & comments
[13:23] herman Bergson: what about it Paolo
[13:24] herman Bergson: Science is exterior only
[13:24] Paolo Rousselot: scattered throughout what you listed were obsevrations that reflected both positions
[13:24] Paolo Rousselot: again - wouldn't Jung disagree?
[13:24] herman Bergson: disagree with what?
[13:25] Paolo Rousselot: that all science is exterior only
[13:25] herman Bergson: oh yes...
[13:25] Paolo Rousselot: he seemed to have "verified" an interior journey that was replicable
[13:25] Mick Nerido: When one reads a book of fiction it can have a "real" world effect on us
[13:26] herman Bergson: unfortunately he doesn't meet the rigid verificationist standards
[13:26] Paolo Rousselot: and he might state that those who disagree haven't made tha same journey...
[13:26] Paolo Rousselot: either by choice or ability
[13:27] herman Bergson: that is not a sound argument....just the authority fallacy
[13:27] Paolo Rousselot: well, having "walked in the tall grass" I reserve the right to respectfully disagree
[13:27] Birric Forcella: Well, for behaviorists, there are no feelings or emotions. The behavior is all there is. So a behaviorist will take some gasoline, set a cat on fire (or a child) and observe the screaming and newling behavior. Does the cat (child) feel anything? Of course not. The behavior is all there is. that's basically what behaviorists do when they "cure" gays.
[13:27] Doodus Moose is Offline
[13:28] herman Bergson: cool example Birric...or hot actually
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: thats too easy argued
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes ..behaviorism isn't the answer to understand what the mind is or consciousness
[13:28] Sky Albanese: how many reported cat burnings have been atributed to behaviorists?
[13:29] herman Bergson: you have to ask the fire department that Sky,I dont know
[13:30] Birric Forcella: Lots of behaviorists in concentration camps - but also a lot of Jungians - the freudians were on the other side . . .
[13:30] Sky Albanese: i heard a lot of education is schools for kids with learning dificultys depends greatly on skinners work, that is a kid is given a small punishment for shoutings and fighting, and then a small reward for every good thing done, like sting and listing in class for 5 minutes
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: they didn't know that they are behaviorists
[13:30] Sky Albanese: very practical tool they say
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: I cannot fill completely the term behavior here in use
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well..at this moment scientifically it seems that th ereal name of Fraud is Fraud :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Freud
[13:31] herman Bergson: Behavior is any action of the organism Sybyle...
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: oki
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:32] Paolo Rousselot: is that solely an exterior action herman
[13:32] herman Bergson: As I said..behaviorism doesn't sell anymore :-)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: I think to try to take behavior as a indicator for mental reactions is worth trying
[13:32] Birric Forcella: Well, Freud asserted that human actions make sense when understood (interpreted) rightly - though you may fight over what is rightly there - Behaviorists assert that human actions are infinitely fungible - that any action can be tied to ANY stimulus. That means, human actions are basically meaningless. You decide who is right.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Paolo
[13:33] Sky Albanese: people say it doesn't explain the mind, but then what does? nothing
[13:33] herman Bergson: The relation stimulus response is questionable...
[13:33] Birric Forcella: I myself am on the side of making sense . . .
[13:34] herman Bergson: there is no law like relation...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: the problem with Freud is, his doctrines were good, but not his conclusions
[13:34] herman Bergson: if so it would be possible to predict how a person would respond on a stimulus...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:34] Sky Albanese: he also though if experience as a replacement for experimentation
[13:34] Sky Albanese: thought
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: but they had to try, that we can exclude
[13:35] herman Bergson: Suppose you go to a museum with a friend....
[13:35] Paolo Rousselot: a few years ago Big Dreams were quite a profound stimulus for me - it was my experience alone but very real nonetheless
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is exactly the point Paolo....
[13:35] Paolo Rousselot: k
[13:35] Sky Albanese: big dreams?
[13:35] herman Bergson: it was a private experience...
[13:36] Paolo Rousselot: yes Sky
[13:36] Birric Forcella: Behaviorism got superseded by cognitivism (which is an even more awful theory) because it was eventually recognized that learning occurs even without stimuli
[13:36] herman Bergson: exactly Birric
[13:36] herman Bergson: But well get to that in next lectures :-)
[13:36] Birric Forcella: okay
[13:37] herman Bergson: In fact the behavioristic approach tried to ignore the first person perspective of the mind....
[13:38] herman Bergson: discarding it as inaccessible for science
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yet it is there...the mind ..consciousness....a material universe...and we try to understand how this all goes together
[13:39] herman Bergson: soI guess I'll prepare some more lectures on this subject :-)
[13:39] Paolo Rousselot: (...and sometimes overlaps...)
[13:39] Birric Forcella: Vey nice
[13:39] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...
[13:39] Birric Forcella: welcome
[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
The belief that what really exists is mental may sound somewhat preposterous today, but yet this conviction has played an important role in philosophy, especially in German philosophy from Kant to Heidegger.You find the problem in the cartesian doubt. You can doubt everything, even the reality of the world, but you can not doubt the existence of the mind. So, the step to the conclusion that the mind eventually is the only entity of which you are absolutely sure that it is real, is close at hand.Another philosophical line of thinking is: all we really have are sensory impressions. They may be caused by external things or may be hallucinations, at the end all we really have are sensory impressions in our mind.Kant went a step further and concluded that there is something missing here. How can we recognize a sensory impression as being an object in space and time, for instance?What we call reality, is in fact created. organized, by our mind.Thence what is really real, is mental. This quality positioned the human being above the material world.When we think reflectively of mental phenomena we find that we acknowledge them to possess two sets of properties: one set which invites us to distinguish the mental realm from the physical, the other which firmly locates the mental within the physical world. Among the first set of properties are subjectivity, infallible first-person knowledge, consciousness, meaning, rationality, freedom and self-awareness. These properties are not to be found in the world of mere matter, and so lead us to suppose the mind to be set apart from the physical body: we seem compelled to accord a special mode of reality to mental phenomena.However, because of the development of science we accept a few basic truths today, for instance, that the brain, itself a physical organ of the body, is intimately related to mental activity, its integrity and functioning necessary to the integrity and functioning of the mind; that mental phenomena seem to emerge, both in evolution and individual development, from a basis of matter organized in physically explicable ways. These considerations incline us to regard the mind as somehow physical in nature, since it is natural to suppose that only what is itself physical could be so enmeshed in the physical world.The brain and the mind seem to work in parallel: The brain is the physical understructure of the mind. That fact suggests a strategy for investigation. We should be able to find out things about the brain by seeing how the mind works. We should be able to find out things about the mind by seeing how the brain works. The clearest and most uncompromising version of monism is the thesis that mental phenomena are literally identical with physical phenomena: if a person has a sensation or a thought and a neurophysiologist is examining the relevant portions of his brain, then the mental state is nothing other than the physical state thus observed.Moreover, whenever a mental state of that type occurs in a creature's mind there is the same type of physical state in the brain, these being identical.The model for such type identities is said to be provided by such theoretical identifications as that of water with H2O or heat with molecular motion: just as we may be presented with one and the same phenomenon in two different ways and subsequently discover the identity, so-- it has been claimed--we may be presented in two different ways with a mental phenomenon, physically and mentally.Don't think that this is the final story. Far from that, but it was my thesis in 1977 at my graduation from university: The Identity Theory ㋡The Discussion[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours, if you like.... ㋡[13:28] herman Bergson: hears everybody think......[13:28] Pirie Takacs: lol[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: timeout ..giggles[13:28] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark...feel free...[13:29] herman Bergson: Simply stated this identity theory says....[13:29] herman Bergson: some words have different meanings, but the same referent...[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: its a new point of view... two different states of being.. connected.. but it remains a biochemical pc[13:30] herman Bergson: this means ..'water' has another meaning than 'H2O'[13:30] herman Bergson: but both terms refer to the same reality[13:30] Pirie Takacs: I'm very much a novice, so please excuse me if this sounds naive... But how does this explain consciousness, which seems to me to be a leap above the mechanics of the brain?[13:31] herman Bergson: Good question Pirie....[13:31] herman Bergson: actually ...the BIG question....[13:31] Mick Nerido: So in the brain when i see the color red the chemical process is the same for every brain.[13:31] Clint Pheocene: it doesn't...i suspect that the question of consciousness will be answered not by philosophers or neuroscientists, but by physicists[13:31] Bejiita Imako: well i guess everyone sees red as the same color unless colorblind[13:31] Bejiita Imako: d[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Clint ...that may be a possible development....[13:32] Clint Pheocene: everyone as in humans or everyone as in humans/dolphins/aliens?[13:32] herman Bergson: But we have to face a problem here...[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but animals interpret it different as they see at least some speices different parts of the spectra[13:33] Clint Pheocene: it is highly unlikely for an alien to see redness when it sees an apple[13:33] herman Bergson: also when there would be a physical explanation of consciousness[13:33] Mick Nerido: stimulate the same part of everyones brain to get same sensation[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....[13:34] herman Bergson: When I think of the Eifeltower and you do the same...[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: if a physician explains consciousness, he will never get the point of it.. may be the mechanics[13:34] herman Bergson: are there in our brains identical processes going on?[13:34] Mick Nerido: That is my question[13:35] herman Bergson: There is one problem here why they can not be identical...[13:35] herman Bergson: I can say that this is MY experience , like you can say the same....[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: our computers are not yet perfect , will they have a conciousness in future?[13:35] herman Bergson: subjectivity of experiences...[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: if there are similar processes.. it need not mean that the mind's processes are similar[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: to those of the brain[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I think[13:36] herman Bergson: You cant say that Sybyle when you accept a monist view like the identity theory[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: please explain[13:37] herman Bergson: ANd computers won't get consciousness, Lizzy, but we'll get to that an other time ㋡[13:38] herman Bergson: talking about the mind and talking about the brain is a kind of speaking two different languages, but all words refer to that one and only material reality[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:39] herman Bergson: But believe me we aren't even halfway...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the analogy with a computer i can get is that if the brain is the hardware the mind is sort of the operating system or software that runs on it[13:39] Mick Nerido: The brain is the material the mind is the process of that brain[13:39] herman Bergson: We still have to face a lot of arguments pro and contra[13:39] Bejiita Imako: thats the closest analogy i can think of[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: but spicy pasta tastes same physically to all, but the mind has a different taste in every case[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so there must not be similarity[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: excuse my english.. I mean need[13:40] herman Bergson: Taste is a difficult issue.....[13:41] herman Bergson: especially because it is highly subjective.....[13:41] herman Bergson: if subjectiveness is a property of my mental states.....who to deal with that property?[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: but isn't that the mind's work?[13:42] herman Bergson: only your mind's work sybyle...[13:42] Pirie Takacs nods.. I know what is spicy to my brain, after its accumulation of data, isn't the same as those of my Indian friend...*giggles, and fans her mouth, indicating 'spicy'=hot![13:42] Mick Nerido: The philosical question is why is matter mind at all?[13:42] herman Bergson: yes Mick....[13:43] herman Bergson: We look at the astonishing fact that we live in a completely material universe[13:43] herman Bergson: Every atom is as dead as a duck..[13:43] Clint Pheocene: yes what advantage do qualitative states provide to the functioning of the mechanical brain?[13:43] herman Bergson: And yet..here we are conscious...[13:44] herman Bergson: That is a big discussion Clint, yes...[13:44] Mick Nerido: yet life comes from inanimate matter[13:44] herman Bergson: I am still working on that issue....because I don't like the qualia turn at all :-)[13:44] Clint Pheocene: life can be explained in terms of inanimate matter but not consciousness....for example, philosophical zombies are perfectly explained by todays physics[13:45] herman Bergson: oh my...the zombie thought experiment...[13:45] herman Bergson: I am still trying to figure out how to deal with that stidetrack, Clint ㋡[13:45] herman Bergson: This project is a matter of work in progress ^_^[13:46] Clint Pheocene: absolutely...we have a long way to go[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes , but it is fascinating...[13:47] Mick Nerido: What does it all mean, Herman?[13:47] herman Bergson: when they can replace braincells by a chip which participates in the brian processes....where does it lead to...[13:47] herman Bergson: What do you mean Mick ...with 'all'[13:48] Pirie Takacs thinks...but, the fact that a body can live, and it's made up of inanimate atoms - maybe we are looking at atoms the wrong way? Maybe we don't yet know all the PARTS that make us up?[13:48] Mick Nerido: Is the universe meaningful in you view?[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Pirie that could be pretty well the case[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: there is a story about the dna[13:48] herman Bergson: No Mick...the universe has no meaning or purpose at all[13:49] herman Bergson: it is just there as far as I can understand[13:49] Mick Nerido: But there is no proof..[13:49] herman Bergson: Proof of what?[13:50] Mick Nerido: So we can still speculate...[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles...[13:50] herman Bergson: yes we can Mick...[13:50] herman Bergson: And Sybyle...[13:50] herman Bergson: there is one interesting observation....[13:51] herman Bergson: evolution has configured molecules in all kinds of ways...[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: sure[13:51] herman Bergson: and in such a way now and then so that there was created a completely new feature...[13:51] herman Bergson: like molecules got organized in DNA strings....[13:52] herman Bergson: or in such a way that consciousness emerged[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: the scientists tried to decode the dna.. and thought, they could be able to understand when decoded[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes maybe we are looking in the wrong direction to understand the relation between brain and consciousness[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: but when done, they have to recognize there are more levels more structures to decode[13:53] Mick Nerido: Consciousness could be a side effect[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: nice..isn't it?[13:53] herman Bergson: There is at least so much understanding of DNA that we can maipulate genes and change living organisms[13:54] Pirie Takacs believes that all animals have a consciousness, albeit some not as sophisticated as others[13:54] Clint Pheocene: do shrimp have consciousness?[13:54] herman Bergson: That would lead to a discussion on the definition of consciousness Pirie[13:54] Pirie Takacs: Maybe we should look at why we should have consciousness at all?[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: i think that consciousness is equal and not a sideeffect[13:55] Pirie Takacs: I'n beginning to think it's a necessity for survival.[13:55] Bejiita Imako: but if we hadn't how could we then act and react with our surroundings and do anything[13:55] Clint Pheocene: plants survive without it[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:55] herman Bergson: That is what I mean by definition Pirie...[13:56] Clint Pheocene: bejita, we could react just like any computer today[13:56] Bejiita Imako: even an ant must have some sort of conciousness to be able t do hmm well what ants do[13:56] herman Bergson: when you define consciousness as a mechanism which enables the organism to interact with its environment effectively you are right[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aha[13:56] herman Bergson: but consciousness is more....[13:56] Pirie Takacs nods... There are many parts to the definition, I think :)[13:57] herman Bergson: most important feature is self-awareness for instance[13:57] herman Bergson: if you make that part of the definition , most organisms do not have consciousness[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Hm,. But if we have no self-awareness, how can we have consciousness at all? We must be able to separate ourselves from others and other things in our environment - thus we label them, and gather info about them[13:58] herman Bergson: they have an awareness of their environment...sure[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aha[13:59] herman Bergson: There you use self-awareness as one of the defining features of consciousness Pirie[13:59] Mick Nerido: A computer can not be self aware?[14:00] Pirie Takacs: Yes. Atm, I believe I would include that...*isn't 100% sure though[14:00] herman Bergson: no....[14:00] herman Bergson: But that will be for a next lecture Mick....[14:00] Mick Nerido: perhaps it could be programed in...[14:00] Clint Pheocene: then it would only behave as if it were self aware[14:00] herman Bergson: I don't think it was easy today ..but a very good discussion, I would say :-)[14:01] Bejiita Imako: a computer is sort of millions of lamp switches in miniature connected together and do everything by binary math but simply switch from on to off and back on[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again..[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and a lamp switch cant be conscious what i know[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman and all[14:01] Sybyle Perdide: you were great Herman.as always[14:01] Mick Nerido: Wonderful class thanks[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed after Bejiita has finished ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: hehe now this was interesting[14:01] Clint Pheocene: thanks everyone[14:01] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman, it was great today[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gt more and more great[14:02] herman Bergson: thank you...[14:02] Bejiita Imako: \o/[14:02] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo![14:02] Bejiita Imako: / \[14:02] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:02] Bejiita Imako: now u gave me a lot to think about[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hehe[14:02] Pirie Takacs: Are there any books/authors/philosophers we could read about this, Herman?[14:02] Clint Pheocene: when is the next cl;ass?[14:02] herman Bergson: Tuesday, Clint[14:02] herman Bergson: same time same place[14:02] Clint Pheocene: great[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:03] herman Bergson: There are tons of books Pirie...[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Ciska ㋡[14:03] Bejiita Imako: bye all[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: bye cis[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: By e Bej[14:04] herman Bergson: I have a whole library of PDF files on the subject....[14:04] herman Bergson: hundreds of titles[14:04] Clint Pheocene: try David Chalmers and perhaps Daniel Dennett? I havent read their works yet[14:04] herman Bergson: That is heavy stuff Clint...[14:04] herman Bergson: Chalmers and Dennett don't agree with eachother[14:04] Clint Pheocene: yes that was my intention[14:04] Clint Pheocene: i agree with Chalmers[14:05] herman Bergson: I still don't know how to evaluate the different points of view of these two...[14:05] Clint Pheocene: from what i can read of their wikipedia page that is lol[14:05] herman Bergson: interesting[14:05] Pirie Takacs: Oh, I don't need them to agree - it may be better if they don't. I get more opinions then...*grins[14:05] herman Bergson: oh I have better places to go for you...[14:05] herman Bergson: got a minute?[14:06] herman Bergson: Then I'll fetch a few URLs for you[14:06] herman Bergson: Really top of the bill academic material[14:06] Pirie Takacs: Ok...*eyes light up.[14:06] herman Bergson: http://plato.stanford.edu/[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.iep.utm.edu/[14:07] herman Bergson: these two are internet classics[14:07] Pirie Takacs: Thank you...*adds them to her list of Favourites[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html[14:08] herman Bergson: Stanford and IEP are the best and most scientific[14:08] Pirie Takacs: I used to have access to university libraries, but now I don't, as I'm not studying at the moment...*sighs sadly[14:09] Clint Pheocene: well there are lots of pdf versions of books on consciousness you can donwload... [14:09] herman Bergson: Indeed Clint![14:11] Clint Pheocene: alright see you next class everyone…byw[14:11] Clint Pheocene: *bye[14:11] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)[14:11] herman Bergson: Bye Clint[14:11] Clint Pheocene: LOL then im me ill send you a few links[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: bye clint[14:11] herman Bergson: thnx for your participation[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: Bye Pirie[14:11] Clint Pheocene: thanks professor...bye[14:12] Lizzy Pleides: just waiting for Sybyle[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: I am here[14:13] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy, Sybyle[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Pirie[14:13] Lizzy Pleides: good bye Herman![14:13] Pirie Takacs: Bye, sybyle :)
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 ^_^ 
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: YesHas 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 ^_^
