skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The general idea we have about ourselves is, that we have a mind and a body. They normally work together. It made Descartes (1596 -1650), a French philosopher, wonder.Mind and body were such different things. For instance, a mind is indivisible, hence indestructible, while a body is infinitely divisible.The mind is free. I can think and experience whatever I want, while the body is determined. It is a series of causal processes. I have to eat, if I don't want to starve.The mind is only "unfree" in the sense that it can not stop thinking, which brought Descartes to his famous "cogito, ergo sum". This typical feature of the mind proved our existence.My mind is directly and privately accessible for me. No one can see my thoughts, but my body is public. Everyone can see me.Thence Descartes had to conclude that the mind had to be something completely different from the body. You even can think of the mind without that body.So he stated that there are two kinds of substances in the world, a mental and a physical. The essence of the mental is "thinking" or consciousness, while the essence of the physical was extension.According to Descartes, the mental and the physical are entirely different realms. One is a realm of things that obey physical laws and occupy space. Another is a realm of ideas, sensations, and feelings that don’t even exist in space. The philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976) referred to this Cartesian Dualism and view of the mind as "the ghost in the machine" and this is exactly the situation.Our physical body is subjected to the laws of nature, while the mind, being not physical, is not. This observation leads to the most important objection to dualism.Descartes himself was well aware of the objection, which was: How can a non-physical substance influence a physical substance. There is not a single law of nature that answers that question.He literally has tried to find the answer by dissecting real human brains. He discovered that in the brain everything comes in pairs, a left and right hemisphere and so on, but at the base of the cortex he found one single little part: the pineal gland.There it was where mind and body touched each other. However, this was a weak answer, because the question was not WHERE mind and body were in a causal relation, but HOW the causal process could take place.This causality on which the laws of physics are based leads to another problem with dualism. This physical causality means that the body is determined. Every process is predictable.But the mind is free. We have a free will. But when everything in the physical world is determined what difference makes a so called free will then?I have direct access to my mind, but when you think of it….it is the only mind I can go to. Are there also other minds in the world? How can I be sure about that?But not only other minds are a problem. If I am locked in my own experiences, my own mind, how can I ever really know anything of the external world? In that way we end up with Skepticism.And when I stop thinking, do I stop to exist then too? When I am unconscious or asleep, what is my condition then?And then there is the "I" in the "I think, therefore I exist". Where did Descartes find that "I"? What is it? Where does it come from.There have been written complete libraries about all these questions for Dualism and dualism had no answer. How to proof that the mental and the physical are two separate realms, which really exist and where the laws of physics only apply to one of these realms?In other words, there is hardly any scientist nowadays who believes that the mind is some kind of exclusive substance next to physical substance.The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: but there is no explanation what it is then[13:26] Mick Nerido: Descartes thought the soul resided in the pineal gland...[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: is there?[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think they are finding so many connections in the mental ability to control parts of the body[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): using for people who have lost limbs etc[13:27] herman Bergson: explanation for what Ciska?[13:27] Doodus Moose: indeed, MIT has controllers where people can move things by thinking[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: for what we called mind up to now[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:27] herman Bergson: oh yes..there is...:-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:27] herman Bergson: but we havent yet come to that...[13:27] Bejiita Imako: have seen such things[13:28] herman Bergson: it is the whole reason of this project :-)[13:28] Bejiita Imako: kind of interesting[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: so at the moment you want us to accept that there is something else you are going to explain later on - right?[13:28] herman Bergson: No Mick...the soul was not in the pineal gland according to Descartes[13:29] herman Bergson: of course Ciska..[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: ok[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: I'll wait for the alternative then ;)[13:29] herman Bergson smiles[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:30] herman Bergson: I don't give all my treasures away that easily Ciska...[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: well you want me to give something up[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: so i have to get something for it[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: thats economics ;))[13:30] herman Bergson: But ..main point today is...substance duality[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: (teasing of course)[13:30] Mick Nerido: The world is so filled with opposites light and dark, male and female, mind and body that leads to dualism[13:31] Doodus Moose: the nature of light itself, lends to dualism[13:31] herman Bergson: The idea that the mind is another kind of substance than molecules[13:31] Mick Nerido: Yes Doodus[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: i think its just a matter of language... buddhism for example speaks of bodymind[13:31] herman Bergson: waves and particles..isnt it Doodus[13:32] Doodus Moose: correct[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yea[13:32] Bejiita Imako: s[13:32] herman Bergson: but that is just a technical issue, I would say[13:33] Doodus Moose: again, how would Descartes describe the situation where a person could move a mouse cursor with some equipment attached to his head?[13:33] herman Bergson: you cant compare that to the mind - body relation, I would say[13:33] Mick Nerido: Matter may not be what it seem with so much unknown in the universe ie. dark matter and dark energy[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): he would faint[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma![13:34] herman Bergson: Well...the question ..."What is matter" is a complete different story Mick...[13:34] herman Bergson: It has no effect on our problem today, I think[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: mh... if we consist of matter and matter is in our brain... and our mind is our brain[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: matter matters.[13:35] Ciska Riverstone whispers: no?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...[13:36] Bejiita Imako: well matter study is a fav hobby for me[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:36] herman Bergson: we have to assume that what we call the mind is just a feature of the brain..[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and antimatter for that part as well[13:36] Flo (flora.jewell) is now known as Flora Jewell.[13:37] Mick Nerido: And quantum physics is an issue also[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: yes Mick think so too[13:37] herman Bergson: well..only to some extend Mick...[13:37] Mick Nerido: Just plating devils advocate[13:37] herman Bergson: it doesn't change the fact that the mind is a feature of the brain[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: no not at all[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: it asks how[13:38] herman Bergson: it may be involved in the discussion about free will[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): complex[13:38] herman Bergson: We will get to that certainly[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: very, Gemma[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....[13:39] herman Bergson: I sometimes don't know where to begin....[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: can imagine that[13:39] Bejiita Imako: mm[13:39] herman Bergson: .[13:39] Bejiita Imako: aaa puh new keyboard works again[13:39] herman Bergson: there are so many issues , all related to each other[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hit num lock on my new mini keyboard, no wonder it started behaving strang[13:39] herman Bergson: But I'll do my best ^_^[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :_)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: complex as the linkings in the brain ;)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: and we appreciate that ![13:40] herman Bergson: Well..yet this is an important issue..dualism...[13:40] herman Bergson: it means...if we reject it as an explanation of the mind...[13:41] herman Bergson: then there is not such a thing as a material body and an immaterial mind[13:41] Jerome Ronzales: is it right to say that Dualism is a Absolutism?[13:41] herman Bergson: it also means...and that was what Descartes hoped to save...there is no immaterial soul[13:42] herman Bergson: no Jerome..makes little sense..I am sorry[13:42] Mick Nerido: And yet there is an immaterial quality to the mind[13:42] Jerome Ronzales: ok[13:43] herman Bergson: I will disagree with you Mick.. :-)[13:43] herman Bergson: that sounds like property dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: that means...[13:43] herman Bergson: ok...no mind substance...[13:43] herman Bergson: but the mind is a property ,,a special property of the brain[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: Mick - maybe we see it like that cause we see that matter reacts to the same things in the same way wether decisions seem not to[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not the brain itself..but a special "mind" property[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can you locate the mind property?[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Beertje...that has taken a while...[13:45] herman Bergson: the egyptians didn't give a dime for the brain...[13:45] herman Bergson: their Pharaos were burried without a brain[13:45] Mick Nerido: We can see the brain at work with brain scans[13:45] herman Bergson: The Greek thought it was located in the chest or abdomen..:-)[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes but we still do not know why it fires which neuron - as far as i know mick[13:46] herman Bergson: In the Middle Ages they began to believe that the mind was in the head[13:47] herman Bergson: No. I wouldn't say so Ciska...[13:47] herman Bergson: We really know where what functions are located where in the brain[13:48] herman Bergson: Look at the charts on the wall for instance[13:48] herman Bergson: That doesn't mean we understand the brain as such...:-)[13:49] herman Bergson: But we have soem insight[13:49] Doodus Moose: we might all use the same parts to walk, but what is "programmed" in the reasoning section is somewhat individual[13:49] Mick Nerido: There is global theory and another that says specific areas do specific functions[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: i meant the individual thing - yes doodus[13:51] herman Bergson: OK...let's conclude that we are not inclined to accept substance dualism as an option to explain the mind[13:51] herman Bergson: at least...that is MY point of view[13:51] Doodus Moose: :-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] herman Bergson: Deal Bejiita ^_^[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:52] Mick Nerido: Ok, but was Spinosa's mind better than Descartes? ")[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:52] Bejiita Imako: its for sure an interesting topic[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): different maybe[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: definitivly gemma[13:52] herman Bergson: better means that you have criteria to test the difference[13:53] herman Bergson: wehat are they Mick?[13:54] Mick Nerido: They both lived in Holland, most of their lives also...funny[13:54] herman Bergson smiles[13:55] herman Bergson: Both didnt wear wooden shoes or loved tulips :-)[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha![13:55] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahahahahaha[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: hahahahahaaaa[13:55] herman Bergson: so I guess they were equal partners in this matter[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: *** HOHOHO THAT IS A GOOD ONE !!! ***[13:55] Mick Nerido: They found a friendly intellectual community I would guess[13:56] herman Bergson: Oh yes..[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:56] herman Bergson: But the fact that the one had another idea than the other doesnt make him bette or worse..[13:57] herman Bergson: scientifically you could ask the question....who was closer to how things really are[13:57] herman Bergson: but in those days they only had their own brain....[13:57] herman Bergson: their imagination..[13:58] Mick Nerido: Good point herman[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:58] herman Bergson: like even the Greeks like Democritus, when I am not mistaken, imagened that the world was a collection of atoms[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i should make it thursday[13:58] herman Bergson: Or Leibniz thought it were monads[13:59] herman Bergson: Glad you were back again Gemma..missed you[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): had a good time away tho[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hehehe[13:59] herman Bergson: Sure :-)[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: :) great gemma[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): saw lots of birds[14:00] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 22 species of warbler[14:00] Doodus Moose: :-0[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa ok[14:00] Bejiita Imako: nice[14:00] Mick Nerido: Where?[14:01] herman Bergson: Well..I gues it is time to dismiss class then...[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ah[14:01] herman Bergson: Now that Gemma is gone ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: again very interesting[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gave me some more to think about ㋡[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: very interesting - thank you herman[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you Bejiita[14:01] Doodus Moose: Thanks, Professor :-)[14:01] Mick Nerido: Bye, thanks[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: bye Mick[14:01] Bejiita Imako: tine to head on I guess[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[14:02] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was very interesting again[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye all[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hugs[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye Bejiita[14:02] Doodus Moose: ....surrounded by .......particles......[14:02] Bilthor Esharham: Very interesting...very thanks professor......)))[14:02] Jerome Ronzales: bye´[14:02] herman Bergson: Tahnk you Bilthor[14:02] herman Bergson: Thank[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye professor[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye all~[14:03] Bilthor Esharham: bye bye....Auf Wiedersehen[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Jerome[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: cya next time~
Sofar we have focused on how our brain is wired to generate our mind and our supersense, our ability to believe in the supernatural. Today we'll have a closer look at the mind itself.In the first place we instinctively try to figure out what’s on each other’s minds. What is going on in the other, so that we can come up with the right response in a debate or a negotiation or in a counseling session.We are mind-readers, but of course not perfect ones. Nevertheless, it is easier to understand others as beings motivated by minds rather than the unsavory alternative: mindless beings, sophisticated robots, or well-dressed zombies. To be able to read the mind of others we focus primarily on the face of the other and secondly on the movements of the other. We have learnt that movements have a goal and that there is an intention behind.The brain is wired to concentrate on faces. Like we are able to see faces in the clouds or in creepy dark shadows…. The fusiform gyrus of the brain (an area just behind your ears) is active whenever you look at faces.When this part of the brain gets damaged you will have difficulty in recognizing faces. It even can be that serious, that you don't recognize your own face in the mirror.From the beginning of our existence faces and movement are a sign of the other mind, of a person with intentions and beliefs. And our basic strategy is to read the mind of the other.Evolutionary our ability of mind-reading is an important tool in the group, to be able to anticipate what the other will do next. We naturally assume that others are motivated by their mind. This is what Dan Dennett calls adopting “the intentional stance.”Thus we attribute beliefs and desires to agents, as well as some intelligence and the funny thing is that these agents do not have to be only human.A smart manufacturer of vacuum cleaners put a face on its HVR 200-22 model and a name: "Henry". The result is that people start to talk about Henry as the dedicated servant whenever complains.And there goes our supersense again. The intentional stance is just a comfortable way of talking about and interacting with the natural and artificial world.Just remember Piaget, and how he discovered the animism that is in every child. Like the intentional stance this way of thinking emerges at a very young age and creates an easy route to supernatural thinking.For those who have forgotten, "supernatural thinking" means believing in ideas that defy any law of nature. Like the idea of talking to your vacuum cleaner or your dog and then believing that is has a mind that understands.The basic conclusion is that these observations of cognitive development psychology reinforce the conviction that our brain is wired to believe in dualism: the belief that we have a body and a mind and that they are two interrelated things.It was not Descartes(1596 - 1650) who introduced dualism. It was the way he used and interpreted his mind not knowing that his brain was his mind, that introduced substance dualism: body is material, mind is….????Ever heard an elder person say "Hold on… this old carcass isn't that fast anymore?" or something the like? The implied meaning is clear: tho the mind is still young and willing, the body is old and no longer what it used to be."We treat the mind and the body as separate because that is what we experience. I am controlling my body, but I am more than just my body. We sense that we exist independently of our bodies." says Bruce Hood.To conclude for today we could say that our brain generates a dualistic experience of ourselves. What this really means we'll discuss in the next lecture.The Discussion[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you... :-)[13:21] Adriana Jinn: thanks to you[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark..feel free[13:22] itsme Frederix: cogito ergo sum QED[13:22] Florencio Flores: *¨¨*:•.•:*¨*«´¯`•.¸¸• ☆☆☆ * S * U * P * E * R * N * A * T * U * R * A * L * ´¯`•.¸¸• *¨¨*:•[13:22] Florencio Flores: Supernatural!!![13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: it is still interesting finding out about the relationship of mind and body[13:22] itsme Frederix: sum ergo cogito?[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...in fact that is the real thing[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so itsme[13:23] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:23] herman Bergson: If our thesis is, that the brian is the mind then our friend Descartes was obviously mistaken[13:23] itsme Frederix: smart thing that brain, smart move of evolution to I guess[13:24] herman Bergson: in fact Itsme this is supernatural thinking...[13:24] itsme Frederix: nothing wrong with that after all these lectures[13:24] herman Bergson: To attribute smartness to evolution...[13:24] herman Bergson: Evolution isnt smart at all ^_^[13:24] Florencio Flores: YES I BELIEVE ON THAT THE DOGS ALL ANIMALS UNDERSTAND THINKIN[13:24] itsme Frederix: sure,[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: evolution just is[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle[13:25] itsme Frederix: so we just are[13:25] itsme Frederix: happens to be[13:25] herman Bergson: You could say that yes Itsme[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, the children of evolution[13:25] herman Bergson: and if a dog would understand thinking why doesnt it read the newspaper then?[13:26] itsme Frederix: vehicles of evolution (supernatural, elitair?)[13:26] herman Bergson: No Itsme...[13:26] Florencio Flores: THEY PREFFER TO READ OUR MOVEMENTS LIKE YOU SAID[13:26] itsme Frederix: if you think right you wouldn't read a newspaper Herman[13:26] herman Bergson: the issue here is, that supernatural thinking is in fact not good...[13:26] Florencio Flores: AND LEARN THEM[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: itsme[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: it is not good[13:27] itsme Frederix: I think we must say, supernatural thinking is neither good or bad, but its good to be aware what kind of thinking you use in circumstances[13:27] Florencio Flores: well i think this herman[13:28] herman Bergson: Ok Itsme...supernarural thinking definitely has a function[13:28] itsme Frederix: Gemma, newspapers are alays interpretation you better made yourself[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: the question could be , is it productive or destructive[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...[13:29] herman Bergson: And the general opinion is that supernatural thinking, especially if it is religious zeal is very destructive[13:29] Bejiita Imako: a dog understands things but not as well as we do, ex you can say to a trained dog ex sit and it will do that, however you might have to bribe it some with candy in process too[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:29] Adriana Jinn: i think so herman[13:29] Bejiita Imako: or even learn them do advanced tricks[13:29] itsme Frederix: evolution has both sides productive and destructive,[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: is the dreamer in a state of supersense, before they invents[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Bekita,but that is all based on training only[13:30] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:30] itsme Frederix: herman, can you quantify "general opinion" fact please not hyperlinks into the nothing[13:30] itsme Frederix: qualify would even be better[13:31] herman Bergson: well...general opinion in the world of science[13:31] itsme Frederix: platitude[13:31] herman Bergson: ok..[13:31] herman Bergson: let is be my opinion then[13:31] itsme Frederix: supersense, science as supersense[13:31] herman Bergson: and maybe there are others that share that opnion[13:31] itsme Frederix: autority?[13:32] herman Bergson: no historical facts...[13:32] itsme Frederix: history is interpretation, facts ... which ones[13:32] Florencio Flores: here where i live dogs talks with their[13:32] Florencio Flores: ladridos[13:32] Florencio Flores: Bark[13:32] herman Bergson: The monotheistic religions, judaism, christianity and Islam have there good sides but are highly desctrucive too[13:33] Adriana Jinn: as you can interprete them yes[13:33] itsme Frederix: so atomic energy has it good side, is very destructive too[13:33] herman Bergson: this kind of supersense leads to a feeling of superiority...[13:33] herman Bergson: no...Itsme...[13:33] itsme Frederix: aha, its the way you use (or misuse) supernatural[13:33] herman Bergson: The human being who uses atomic energy can be both...not the atomic energy itself[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:34] itsme Frederix: right you are herman, I slipped away also[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: the evil of it resides in the mind[13:34] herman Bergson: As I said...supernatural beliefs mean beliefs in things that defy any natural law...[13:34] herman Bergson: no abuse there[13:35] herman Bergson: the belief in gods, afterlife, ghosts, invisible forces etc.[13:35] itsme Frederix: oke, but natural law (causality) might be a supernatural interpretation[13:35] herman Bergson: If I may rephrase your statement Itsme[13:36] itsme Frederix: I'm honored[13:36] : Florencio Flores smacks Bejiita Imako's ass!!![13:36] herman Bergson: The natural law might be defying the natural law's way of interpratation of reality...[13:36] herman Bergson: that makes little sense[13:37] itsme Frederix: well "sense", does it have to make sense (I'm serouos) blind evolution[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: how's this for supersense, regarding dualism, I feel the mind is actually separate from the brain, making us a trilogy of mind/brain/body[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: very complicated thought!!![13:37] itsme Frederix: am I stil on the topic, other might have better things to state ???[13:37] Florencio Flores: there's no evolution[13:37] Florencio Flores: simply not[13:37] Florencio Flores: people don't cares of it[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:38] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...in my next lecture I'll address that issue in detail[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh good[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Itsme, I dont really get what your point is :-)[13:39] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney ^_^[13:39] itsme Frederix: ? do I ?[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: Rod Man![13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hi Rodney[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bejita[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: Hi Rodney[13:40] Rodney Handrick: Hi Alarice[13:40] herman Bergson: Maybe things get clearer after the next lecture ^_^[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i doubt it[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:40] itsme Frederix: oke, reading back - I guess we must not over estimate science and make that 1-1 to reality (whatever reality is)[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL they will be as clear as mud[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: it only gets more complicated as e go[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:40] Adriana Jinn: HIHI[13:40] herman Bergson: Ok....[13:41] herman Bergson: But if our main "mission" as social animals is survival then science offers an opportunity and supernatural thinking doesnt[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: yes!!![13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: amen[13:42] herman Bergson: It even could endanger our survival..[13:42] itsme Frederix: If I may interprete Herman[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I believe it has[13:43] herman Bergson: go ahead Itsme[13:43] itsme Frederix: IF our mission is survive THEN science offers ... May I remind you that without science men lived 100.000 years, and we are now learning that we can destroy men withing a 100 years[13:44] itsme Frederix: sono "historical" fact YET[13:44] herman Bergson: interesting point Itsme, yes[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect we have not lived one iota without science[13:44] Rodney Handrick: I agree Itsme[13:44] itsme Frederix: (again of the topic I guess)[13:44] herman Bergson: But I think you are mistaken...[13:44] herman Bergson: The cave men had science too....[13:45] herman Bergson: they didnt call it that...[13:45] herman Bergson: they just carved stones, made weapons, they might have called it just knowledge[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed they did, and some great scientist in contribution[13:45] herman Bergson: so science/knowledge has been there since the beginning of mankind[13:45] itsme Frederix: that is technics[13:45] Florencio Flores: agree herman[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: think you are right Herman[13:46] Florencio Flores: human just fabricate weapons[13:46] herman Bergson: no Itme...that is human knowledge..[13:46] herman Bergson: they also learned about the healing power of certain plants...that is medicine[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: i think tha t supernatural thinking was a science that was misinterpreted or lost[13:46] itsme Frederix: He we are talking about best oppertunity to survive, and you come up with weapons?[13:46] herman Bergson: They learnt about the movement of the stars...that was astronomy[13:46] herman Bergson: and so on...[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: the very first person to rationalize was a scientist[13:47] herman Bergson: We have real knowledge and we have supernatural knowledge..[13:47] herman Bergson: and the real knowledge contributed to our survival..[13:47] herman Bergson: what we are trying to understand here is ..how to deal with supernatural knowledge...[13:48] herman Bergson: Why do we believe in the Unbelievable[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:48] itsme Frederix: We have scientific/rational knowledge and supernatural/intuitive knowledge, about what we name reality[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: I don't[13:48] Florencio Flores: herman[13:48] Alarice Beaumont: getting complicated[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:48] herman Bergson: On that point we disagree Itsme[13:48] itsme Frederix: there is no such thing a "real knowledge"[13:48] Florencio Flores: do you believe in the future zen?[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: that we seem to agreee on[13:48] itsme Frederix: or everything is "real knowledge"[13:49] herman Bergson: My definition of knowledge is that its truth value can be tested...by experiment[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: historical facts appear to be real knowledge[13:49] herman Bergson: the existence of angels or ghost can not be tested...just believed in[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: yes and scientific facts[13:49] Qwark Allen: the real knowledge of today, it`s not the same as in the future[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: unless they are altered for political reasons[13:50] itsme Frederix: a fact is not the same thing as knowledge, a fact you can know and imbed in knowledge (that my opinion)[13:50] itsme Frederix: ?why can we not test for angels Herman?[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: actual experience is the closet to truth you will get[13:51] herman Bergson: well...this gets complicated..for here we come to ideas of for instance Wittgenstein....[13:51] herman Bergson: The world is all states of affair...[13:51] herman Bergson: The concept of "fact" is very difficullt[13:51] itsme Frederix: complication is not an excuse, we are trained by you so ...[13:51] herman Bergson: or to say it otherwise...where does the fact begin and where dus it end :-)[13:51] Adriana Jinn: ohhhhh[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: in the end, we alone are the judge of fact or fiction[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme, but we loose focus, for this is an epistemologial problem[13:52] Qwark Allen: begin in real knowledge and end in the supernatural one[13:53] itsme Frederix: oke focus ... body/brain => mind[13:53] herman Bergson: Well...I would suggest to wait and see what the next lecture will bring you[13:53] Florencio Flores: brb[13:53] Qwark Allen: not always istme[13:53] herman Bergson: This was really a great discussion..especially thanx to Itsme..![13:53] itsme Frederix: quarks are different I know[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:54] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks[13:54] herman Bergson: So,...may I thank you for this good debate...[13:54] Qwark Allen: your lack of knowledge there it`s not natural[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: hope to see you on Thursday[13:54] Qwark Allen: eheheh[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: the next class is a must then......thank you, Professor[13:54] Bejiita Imako: interesting ㋡[13:54] itsme Frederix: I felt like the roman guy in Asterix&Obelix, setting up every one[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.... ^_^[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman[13:54] herman Bergson: you are welcome Gemma[13:54] Adriana Jinn: sorry have to go thank you professor and all[13:54] itsme Frederix: Herman you gave the fuel. THX[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: wow... thanks Professor[13:55] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!![13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Adriana[13:55] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: have a great evening Qwark :-)[13:55] Jeb Larkham: thanks Herman byeee[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you Itsme..[13:55] Adriana Jinn: bye aristo [13:55] itsme Frederix: your welcome Herman ;)[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks! was so interesting!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman![13:55] Alaya Kumaki: thank yu herman, it is interesting, somthing to pond uppon, again,[13:55] herman Bergson: smiles at Bergie[13:56] itsme Frederix: Bye Bye[13:56] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ׺°”˜I'M BACK`”°º×[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-) smiles[13:56] herman Bergson: Ok Alaya...go for it ^_^[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: byby[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: wb bergie[13:56] Bejiita Imako: cxu[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:56] Bejiita Imako: bye[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: nite everyone :-) see you thursday[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye all[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: very interesting Herman[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks agin[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: see you Thursday[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Aristotle...always good to sasee you here![13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: :) later
