skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We will consider another form of Dualism - property dualism. Whereas substance dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of substances in the world, property dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of properties in the world. When philosophers use the word "property" they mean, roughly, 'feature'.The ultimate thing we want to understand is consciousness, what it is and where it comes from. Descartes reasoned:1. Minds can be conscious2. No physical object can be consciousTherefore3. Minds are not physical objects.We already have seen that this conclusion leads us into a lot of difficult questions, of which of course the most difficult one is: what kind of stuff is the mind made of and how does this mind-stuff interact or is causally related to the physical body?Let's look at it from a different angle. Let's talk about the distinction between substances and properties. For our purposes, a substance is something which could be the only thing in the universe.My body is therefore a substance, for we can easily imagine a universe which contains only my body. On the other hand, having a mass of, say, 85 kg is not a substance.We cannot imagine a universe which contains 85 kg and NOTHING ELSE. So my body is a substance whereas having a mass of 85 kg is not. Having a mass of 85 kg is a property. More generally, substances have properties.We are quite used to this substance - property dualism. When somebody asks you "who is Mr. Johns?" you describe the person by enumerating a number of properties or features: hair is grey, eyes are blue, tall 1.85 m….etc.According to property dualism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain. The brain is a physical substance with various physical properties.For example, the typical brain weighs about one kilogram, contains billions of neurons, has a blood supply and so forth. That much is common ground.What is radical about property dualism is that it claims that, besides all these physical properties, the brain has some nonphysical properties.These include being conscious, being in pain, believing that it is Thursday today. In short, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain.Is this a way to maintain dualism? One of the important property dualism views is called epiphenomenalism.According to epiphenomenalism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain which are brought about by physical properties of the brain.The distinctive feature of this view is that the nonphysical properties of the brain do not, in turn, bring about physical states of the brain. This seems to solve the interaction problem of substance dualism to some extend.When you see some dangerous animal, you think "Help…danger!" but according to the epiphenomenalist,this thought itself doesn't do anything. It is only the physical states of the brain alone which cause you to run away.Is the mind such a feature of the brain indeed? We still run into the same questions as with substance dualism. How can the physical properties of the brain give rise to nonphysical properties of the brain?We still can ask what the features of nonphysical properties are; how we can observe them, what in the brain creates them, in what sense are they nonphysical?If it is true that mental states, e.g. thoughts or seeing a danger, do not cause physical action, but that it is the brain which does that, we have a problem.We have to give up a few rather common sense observations about ourselves: 1. Some mental states cause actions2. some mental states cause other mental states.Regarding 2 it would look like this according to the epiphenomenalist: You see a danger. This causes the thought "danger". Not your thought of danger causes your fear, but a further physical property of the brain makes the nonphysical property "fear" emerge from the brain.Does this mean that we should regard consciousness as a "epiphenomenon". just a side effect of the physical brain?The Discussionherman Bergson: So much for today :-)herman Bergson: The floor is yours Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::herman Bergson: .herman Bergson: Thank you Qwarkherman Bergson: This is an attempt to save dualism....herman Bergson: Is it saved?Qwark Allen: i`m not sureQwark Allen: but was a good try for sureMick Nerido: Very weird save...herman Bergson: yes but in my opinion you still keep the same problems as with substance dualismGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmmGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i doubt itherman Bergson: yes Mich...what sounds a bit odd is that consciousness is some kind of side effect of the physical brainherman Bergson: another question is about the semantics....herman Bergson: object + property statements....Lizzy Pleides: if it is a physical or nonphysical property , isn't that also a question of anatomy and histology and physiology?herman Bergson: the quintessential question is ...those properties....do they really exist independent of the mindGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): have to review propertiesherman Bergson: the point is....a tomato is an object.... it exists as a real thing outside the mind...herman Bergson: but when I say this tomato is red.......?herman Bergson: Redness....what is the ontological status of that?herman Bergson: the brain is conscious....herman Bergson: same questionherman Bergson: how do properties exist...?herman Bergson: a tomato doesn't need a conscious observer to exist...herman Bergson: its redness????Lizzy Pleides: detectionherman Bergson: to show the asymmetry…Mick Nerido: I see a tomato and I think "delicious" you might hate tomatos and think "bar vegi"herman Bergson: yes Mick....but can there be the mental state 'delicious' without the tomato?herman Bergson: can there be redness without this tomato....Mick Nerido: I think so yesherman Bergson: this line of questioning has along traditionherman Bergson: You say yes Mick..ok....herman Bergson: How do we see, detect, experience this redness?Mick Nerido: Redness is a light wavelenthLizzy Pleides: as a remind?Lizzy Pleides: it must have been an experience onceherman Bergson: Well Mick just study "The Knowledge argument" of Jackson...forgot his first name:)Mick Nerido: "Delicious" is a learned experience...herman Bergson: That is the most modern atttempt to proof that there must exist nonphysical propertiesherman Bergson: We'll get to that issue later...herman Bergson: What I now only want to bring to your attention isherman Bergson: that we take properties as such obvious things….herman Bergson: but when you really begin to ask questions, philosophical questionsherman Bergson: then properties are not at all such obvious thingsherman Bergson: How do properties exist?herman Bergson: Do they need a mind to be attributed to objects?herman Bergson: Is it a feature of the mind to "see" properties?Mick Nerido: So redness can exist without an observer and is independent condition in this view?herman Bergson: You say that red is a certain wavelength, Mick...Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): like the tree in the forestherman Bergson: well....suppose you never have seen a tomato....herman Bergson: But you know that wavelength X is called to show you redherman Bergson: So you know what red is....the property of an object....wavelength Xherman Bergson: but suppose all of a sudden someone showed you a tomato....herman Bergson: Then you say....ahhhhhh!!! so that is red!herman Bergson: then you know more...not only a wavelength but also another property of the tomatoherman Bergson: This is a very complex problem....herman Bergson: The word that goes with it is "Qualia"Sybyle Perdide: because a tomato is the sum of many propertiesherman Bergson: We'll discuss this issue later...Mick Nerido: If I was color blind to red and could not see red i would be in the dark, so to speak on rednessherman Bergson: Yes sybyle, what is that property "red" now...bergfrau Apfelbaum paid you L$100.Guestboook van tipjar stand: bergfrau Apfelbaum donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!Qwark Allen is OnlineSybyle Perdide: meaningless for yoherman Bergson: It would still be that specific wavelength Mick.you always could pick out red objects with the right equipmentherman Bergson: Well...I guess I am cracking your brains :-)Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• LOL ‚ô•herman Bergson: Maybe a good idea to dig into the term "property" and its history.herman Bergson: Dates back to Aristotle....Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): rightherman Bergson: In the middle ages it was the core of syllogistic logic....bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must go! byebye class! byebye Birthdayherman!herman Bergson: and today it is the child of the "qualia"Lizzy Pleides: bye bergieherman Bergson: Bye BergieCiska Riverstone: bye BergfrauGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye „ã° herman Bergson: so properties and qualia (= plural of quale) ....nice subject for some weekend reading :-)herman Bergson: and take a copy of the SL Newser too „ã°Ciska Riverstone: „ã°Lilah Morgenstern is Onlineherman Bergson: Thank you all for your attention and participationCiska Riverstone: thank you Hermanherman Bergson: Class dismissed „ã°Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursdaySybyle Perdide: thanks a lotGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): scrool down on the paperwolk Writer is OfflineGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): article about classMick Nerido: Thanks for the brain exercise!Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
After our intriguing questions about substance dualism, let's turn to the more traditional objections against this form of dualism.The substance dualist makes two claims about the mind. One: Mind and body are radically different kinds of substances.Two: Mind and body causally interact.These two claims are in tension. If mind and body are supposed to radically different, how can they causally interact?This objection was first put to Descartes by his contemporary, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618 - 1680). Descartes' replies were highly evasive.He couldn't do anything else because he had no answer. In an attempt to find the answer he even did physical research on brains and in there he found the pineal gland, which he declared to be the point of connection between body and mind.Unfortunately this is the only explanation we have got. In the physical world all kinds of different substances exist. Sunshine can heat metal, for instance.Two very different kinds of physical substances: kind of electromagnetic radiation against an assembly of atoms. Yet physics can tell us in considerable detail about the way light affects metal.A substance dualist like the "inventor" of this metaphysics, Descartes himself, however, can provide no details at all about the way the mind and the brain affect each other.A good theory of mind should be able to explain a number of basic aspects of our mental states. For instance, (1) some mental states are caused by states of the world.(2) Some mental states are caused by actions. (3) some mental states cause other mental states. (4) some mental states are conscious. (5) Some mental states are about things in the world. (6) Some mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.What is striking about substance dualism is the extend to which it fails to illuminate the items on this list. The first two can already not be answered by the substance dualist.Substance dualism has to face more fundamental questions.The "Cogito, ergo sum" is a kind of "Here I am" statement. But this statement has a weak point: it is only ME who is there.Are you there too? How can I achieve knowledge of other minds? How can I know that other people have minds, since the only mind to which I have direct access is my own mind?The body is a physical object, controlled and determined by the laws of physics. If the mind is free, but the body is determined, it looks as if the freedom of the mind, the freedom of will, makes no difference.And there is the danger of skepticism. Everything can be a delusion, except my "cogito". It means that I am imprisoned in my own mind. If I am locked in my own experiences, how can I really know anything of an external world.?It may be clear that substance dualism is not an adequate explanation of what exists in our universe. Of course we know that we have a mind, that we have consciousness.But the idea that this mind is a special substance, which only interacts with our physical body, is hard to defend, since there is not the slightest evidence, that such a mental substance exists.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: So much for substance dualisme...[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:23] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions or give your remarks...the floor is yours[13:25] herman Bergson: This all sounded familiar to you all...[13:25] herman Bergson: Piece of cake?[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no not at all[13:25] Doodus Moose: i took a stress relief course....[13:25] Astronomer Somerset: ok our entire existence our experiences are unique to us because we experience and recognize each experiences according to our own internal model of the world and how we interpret them[13:25] Mick Nerido: This mental substance is akin to soul, not physically verifible[13:25] Qwark Allen: is there a possibility of a 3rd possibility?[13:26] Qwark Allen: non polarized[13:26] herman Bergson: well...[13:26] herman Bergson: if something is not physically verifiable, how can we have knowledge of it then???[13:26] Qwark Allen: seems a bit computer language , zero and one[13:27] Mick Nerido: Indirect evidence?[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: herman a fish swims in water but is it physically aware of the water in which it swims[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Qwark, the first problem me have been that we began counting.....a body and a soul and a mind...[13:28] Qwark Allen: it`s not really a dualism then[13:28] herman Bergson: what do you mean by indirect evidence Mick?[13:28] Astronomer Somerset: we as humans are currently traveling at over 400 miles an hour but we are not physically aware of the fact[13:28] herman Bergson: If you take reality as One, as Spinoza already did, there is no counting...no dualism...[13:29] herman Bergson: no Astro, but you could explain why that is in full detail I guess[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i can but i could not prove it without taking the observer off the planet and showing him the world revolving[13:30] Qwark Allen: the more i think about it, more logical seems to have 3 parts[13:30] herman Bergson: which three parts do you see Qwark?[13:30] Mick Nerido: Dualism requires no explanation other than it is what seem to explain my personal experience.[13:31] Qwark Allen: body, mind and soul[13:31] herman Bergson: hmmmm MIck.....[13:31] herman Bergson: Dualistic thinking is so deeply embeded in our culture.....[13:31] Qwark Allen: wherever you look in nature , 3 seems to be the answer to the the all thing[13:31] herman Bergson: religion plays an important part in that....[13:32] Astronomer Somerset: herman is a schiziophrenic aware of their other selfs[13:32] Qwark Allen: a tree have the body, leaves and the liquid to feed the leaves[13:32] herman Bergson: The magic of numbers Qwark....[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: and language[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: i still think language separates this[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: the 3 parts[13:32] herman Bergson: you also could say that a tree consists of billions of cells all with their own function...[13:33] Qwark Allen: was just a thought that dualism maybe , a little rationalist[13:33] Qwark Allen: to simplistic to explain[13:33] herman Bergson: the separation in three parts is a product of your brain , not a special property of the tree, I would say[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...:-)[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: herman - thats very buddhistic now[13:34] herman Bergson: I dont mind labels Ciska...[13:34] Mick Nerido: The brain has evolved to the point of conscious thought that seperates it from other physical reality[13:34] herman Bergson: But I start with regarding reality as one matter[13:35] Astronomer Somerset: a computer is a true dualist system it has physical hardware and seperate software and the two radically different components interact to produce something more than the two parts[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes mick....our brain can organize our experiences of the external world...put a kind of order into it to handle it[13:35] Mick Nerido: What is this matter that can think?[13:36] herman Bergson: THAT is our MAIN question Mick...yes![13:36] Astronomer Somerset: and computers are modeled on us[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Astro, but only in a primitive way...[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll get to that subject.....[13:37] Astronomer Somerset: our physical bodies are the hardware and our thought and emmotions are the software s[13:37] herman Bergson: You know Astro....[13:37] Mick Nerido: Science my prove dualism wrong but there is such a difference fromhow are brain works than any other organ[13:37] herman Bergson: through history people always have taken something from their reality to make it a model of how man is constructed...[13:38] herman Bergson: Leibniz compared the human being with a windmill....high tech in his time....[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: i am only offering explanations to prove dualism is a possibility[13:38] herman Bergson: Later the brain was compared to a switchboard for telephone....[13:38] herman Bergson: today we love to compare ourselves with computers...[13:39] herman Bergson: Historically an interesting phenomenon....[13:39] Mick Nerido: We build the way were are made...[13:39] herman Bergson: Since Descartes time we love to see the human body as a machine for instance[13:40] herman Bergson: But what does it teach us about the mind body problem....?[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: ok so how do you explain such things as schitzophrenia in a pure singularity existence[13:40] herman Bergson: that is a disfunction of the brain....[13:41] herman Bergson: I don't know if we have all explanations for the phenomenon already...[13:41] herman Bergson: But we know that there goes something wrong in the brain[13:41] Astronomer Somerset: but each separate state is a separate interpretation of that persons existence and i have seen such people with both male and female character traits[13:42] Mick Nerido: Joan d' Arc was probably schizo[13:42] herman Bergson: oh yes...anything is possible if the brain starts short circuiting[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Mick....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: including dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: We have the "God Helmet" now created by that Canadian neuroscientist...[13:43] herman Bergson: Thsi helmet can create such "religious" experiences....[13:44] herman Bergson: Forgot the name...[13:44] Mick Nerido: Is it always a mis function then?[13:44] herman Bergson: I gave a lecture about that[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: good question Mick[13:44] herman Bergson: I would say yes....[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: well- that is based on our values[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: of course[13:44] Mick Nerido: She was a great leader...[13:45] herman Bergson: no..not based on values...but on knowledge13:45] herman Bergson: That she was a great leader doesn't proof a thing Mick...[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge of the past[13:45] herman Bergson: except that she was a great leader[13:46] Mick Nerido: Many saints died as for their belies, were they nuts?[13:46] Mick Nerido: beliefs[13:46] herman Bergson: On the other hand you also can say that Joan was efficiently used by those who were in power...untill she became unconvenient....and simply was murdered by those who were in power[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: herman may i ask do you have any physical proof that dualism does not exist or are you prophiciating your own interpretation and beliefs[13:47] herman Bergson: Well Mick...for that I have only one question....[13:47] herman Bergson: Why aren't there saints anymore today.....[13:47] Mick Nerido: Herman I will nominate you![13:48] herman Bergson: smiles[13:48] herman Bergson: forget it..[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): mother Teresa?[13:48] herman Bergson: No...our view has changed....[13:48] herman Bergson: no Beertje...[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: well- thats exactly what i meant before herman[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge alters[13:48] herman Bergson: I mean saints that see Maria or Jesus himself or things like that[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: and with alteration we judge differently[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: some people would state the Dalai Lama as on like that[13:49] herman Bergson: When somebody would tell us that he had spoken to Jesus personally and has a message for us, we would at least frown at the person....[13:49] Astronomer Somerset: those are visionaries herman not saints[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes - we lable them differently[13:49] Mick Nerido: The mind can overrule what is best for our bodies and our loves, a kind of dualism[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: just different language - agree with you there #Astro[13:50] Astronomer Somerset: to be a saint they must have performed miricales[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: and what is a miracal is again defined by values and knowledge at that very moment[13:50] herman Bergson: According to ROme..indeed Astro..you evenhave to have performed three miracles![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: yes you do[13:51] herman Bergson: That rules me out, Mick....I haven't performed a single miracle[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: one could call leonardo or copernicus or newton visionaries but non are saints[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): after death Herman...[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: michael angelo claims his image of god was a vison[13:52] herman Bergson: I don't know what you mean by visionaries Astro, unless you mean...excellent scientists[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: every scientist needs a vision[13:52] herman Bergson: imagination Ciska...[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: star trek beamer leads to scientist searching for it in swiss[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: no a visionary is someone who experiences a sudden realisation outside of a normal experience herman[13:52] herman Bergson: drive[13:52] Mick Nerido: It's a miracle getting me to understand philosophy![13:53] Ciska Riverstone: where is the difference herman?[13:53] Qwark Allen: ehehhe nice mick[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: *gggg* mick ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: Cool Mick...two to go for me then ^_^[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: count me in ;)[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...were are we?[13:54] herman Bergson: Done with substance dualism?[13:54] Mick Nerido: Humor is only possible in higher brains, why?[13:55] herman Bergson: That is because of self relection Mick[13:55] herman Bergson: Humor is always making a joke of yourself...[13:55] herman Bergson: animals have no ability to self reflection[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to go[13:56] herman Bergson: They can look in a mirror, but only we can laugh at the sight :-)[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very interesting as usual[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: bye qwark[13:56] Qwark Allen: thank you hermann[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark![13:56] herman Bergson: Give my regards to Gemma[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not in the mornings Herman,,pfew....those wrinkles..[13:56] Doodus Moose: self reflection on ones' self reflection?[13:56] herman Bergson: Just then you should laugh Beertje...[13:57] herman Bergson: Friends....[13:57] herman Bergson: this was again a nice discussion[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman - very interesting as always[13:57] herman Bergson: I don't think we are done yet, so next Thursday same time same place ![13:58] Mick Nerido: Very nice discussion, thanks all![13:58] herman Bergson: yes thank you all...[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)))[13:58] Doodus Moose: Thanks indeed, Professor![13:58] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:58] isobelle Garnet: very interesting thank you[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[13:59] herman Bergson: You too ciska![13:59] Doodus Moose: byeeee!!!!!!![13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight all:))[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye:)[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: bye herman[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Astro...[14:02] isobelle Garnet: bye thank you[14:02] herman Bergson: You're ok Alaya?[14:03] herman Bergson: You are ^_^[14:03] herman Bergson: bye[14:03] Teleport completed from http://slu
In my research I came across something that was completely new to me. An attack on the principle, on which Descartes based his argument: the principle of indiscernibility of identicals. It is so exciting that I quote you the whole text.-Begin QUOTE: source Wikipedia (english)The principle of indiscernibility of identicals – that if two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties – is mostly uncontroversial. However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to his body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist.This argument is rejected by many modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity. Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via reductio ad absurdum, such as the following argument based on a secret identity: 1. Entities x and y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa. 2. Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact. 3. Lois Lane thinks that Clark Kent cannot fly. 4. Lois Lane thinks that Superman can fly. 5. Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly. 6. Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent. 7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:- Leibniz's law is wrong; or- A person's knowledge about x is not a predicate of x; or- The application of Leibniz's law is erroneous; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic, properties; or- What people think about are not the actual objects themselves; or- A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs. Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.[3]End QUOTEOf course I can give the the standard objections to dualism and I will, but like this attack on the principle which Descartes uses, you never read much about the semantics of Cogito ergo sum in the standard introductory textbooks on philosophy.But just take a minute to look at that statement "I think, therefore I am". If it is a proposition, or actually two propositions, one inferred from the other, then it must have a truth value. The propositions must be either TRUE or FALSE.Suppose that the propositions are true and then take the first two theses of the Tractatus of Wittgenstein:1 The world is everything that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.Thinking is a factual process…leads to being as some factual state. So far so good, but the process and state are depending on this "I". Where did Descartes find that "I"??? To what fact does this "I" refer to?Then I found an article by Jaako Hintikka ,a Finnish philosopher and logician, in the magazine "The Philosophical Review", Vol. 71,No. 1 (1962) and my heart jumped. Let me quote the first paragraph and you'll understand why.-begin QUOTE1. COGITO, ERGO SUM as a problem. The fame (some would say the notoriety) of the adage cogito, ergo sum makes one expect that scholarly industry has long since exhausted whatever interest it may have historically or topically. A perusal of the relevant literature, however, fails to satisfy this expectation. After hundreds of discussions of Descartes's famed principle we still do not seem to have any way of expressing his alleged insight in terms which would be general and precise enough to enable us to judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it.Thirty years ago Heinrich Scholz wrote that there not only remain many important questions concerning the Cartesian dictum unanswered but that there also remain important questions unasked.' Several illuminating papers later, the situation still seems essentially the same today. - End QUOTESo my semantical doubts about the Cogito are not unjustified. Digging into this theme is beyond the scope of our present project, but it really intrigues me. So, we have fundamental questions about Descartes Cogito, but let's assume it is a valid inference based on true propositions. In the next lecture we shall "judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it." to quote Hintikka.The Discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: I hope I wasn't to difficult today.....:)[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry Herman i was late..i have to read the blog[13:24] herman Bergson: Bu tif you have any remakrks or questions...the floor is yours now ㋡[13:25] oola Neruda: what criteria will you use to make that judgement or examination[13:25] herman Bergson: what judgement oola?[13:25] oola Neruda: about the Descartes assertion[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...most important is to keep in mind that Descartes postulates the existence of two different SUBSTANCES[13:26] Mick Nerido: Superman and Clark Kent are the same but not identical...[13:27] herman Bergson: so ontologically...there exist really two different things...that is the content of our univers[13:27] herman Bergson: the mental and the physical...[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a'[13:27] Doodus Moose: wonders how Descartes would view a room of avatars attending a philosophy lecture [13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is my thought astro[13:27] oola Neruda: what i meant was... some formula of logic... some philosophy that is felt to be truth... the tools for disceting it[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i always wonder that doodus about all of them[13:28] herman Bergson: one moment..[13:28] herman Bergson: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same...can you elaborate on that astro?[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Mick[13:29] Mick Nerido: Two things can be the same but not identical i.e. Superman/ Clark Kent[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i think so even if you where to create two identical objects they would still not be the same as they are both created from independant seperate atoms[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: for true dualism they would have to be made from the same atoms[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Astro..that is also one of the arguments against the identity principle....[13:31] herman Bergson: like two object may have all identical properties...except their location in space....[13:31] Astronomer Somerset: even a mirror image is not identical as it is the reverse[13:31] herman Bergson: However..I have a true SL argument against that![13:31] Bejiita Imako: aaa thats true[13:31] herman Bergson: When I make a prim....[13:32] herman Bergson: and I duplicate that prim at the very same location I have true identity...[13:32] herman Bergson: hmmmmm[13:32] Doodus Moose: except that they have different Keys[13:32] herman Bergson: maybe you would say...no...for when you seperate them they show to have different pixels[13:32] Bejiita Imako: interesting idea[13:32] herman Bergson: Cool Doodus....[13:33] herman Bergson: You win!!!!![13:33] Doodus Moose: it's how the system knows they are different :-)[13:33] herman Bergson: yes the key is different...absolutely![13:33] Astronomer Somerset: no you don't both objects are made from separate zero's and ones you have just two codes the same but they are still separate binary bits[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aa yes they are still 2 different objects even if perfect copies cause simply you have 2 separate ones with2 prim ids or so[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and not just 1[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yaaaaayyyyyyyy![13:33] Bejiita Imako: or dont know[13:34] Mick Nerido: Identicalness is based on more than appearences[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe that got my mind spin a bit[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hhee[13:34] herman Bergson: you even could claim that the two prims differ in memory addresses in my computer[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but one thing i use to say is that even of 2 things are identical they cant be the same cause there are still 2 of them[13:34] Astronomer Somerset: even two identical twins created from the same egg are not identical[13:34] Bejiita Imako: for it to be the same you can have only 1[13:35] herman Bergson: Well I think it now is clear enough that Descartes appeal to the principle of identity is not waterproof ^_^[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm is a bit tricky for sure[13:35] Doodus Moose: "identical" might be true in mathematics, where things on either side of the "equal" sign (could) be the same...[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): even with cells[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:36] druth Vlodovic: wouldn't the spiritual dimension be a property of matter, rather than a duplication of it?[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...that is a next station we will visit...[13:37] herman Bergson: property dualism.....[13:37] herman Bergson: A weaker form of dualism than substance dualism[13:37] druth Vlodovic: 'k[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:37] herman Bergson: The second issue that fascinates me here is the semantics of the "I" in the cogito[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: herman is the statement i think therfore i am truthfully a statement of self aware not existance[13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest ..it was in preperation of this lecture that I really seriously began to think about it...[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it always seemed so rational to me[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: a whale or an ant exist but they may not think the are products of chemical programming[13:40] herman Bergson: well...the title of the article of Hintikka is ... The Cogito: Inference or Performance[13:40] herman Bergson: I just found the article and handt the time to read it[13:40] herman Bergson: except the first few paragraphs :-)[13:41] herman Bergson: Well astro....I think that relates to theproblem of the semantics regarding the "I" in the statement...[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: i always took it to mean a referal of ID[13:42] herman Bergson: Descartes adds almost secretly something to existence....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: which is self aware[13:42] herman Bergson: that I....that awareness...[13:43] herman Bergson: I haven't thought this although yet....[13:43] Mick Nerido: I know I exist...[13:43] Astronomer Somerset: yes it's a statement of self I as in me myself or I[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the awareness was the starting point, onto which he added everything else[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes mick....but that statement PRESUPOSES the I[13:43] herman Bergson: that is what fascinates me here[13:44] Mick Nerido: If I was unconcious I would still exist.[13:44] Astronomer Somerset: we exist in sl but we are not a physical part of the programming we are a user and our avi's are just binary code so do we exist in sl[13:45] herman Bergson: We will get to such arguments in the next lecture Mick....[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm this is also an interesting thing[13:45] herman Bergson: smiles[13:45] Bejiita Imako: take plants for example[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but are they self aware[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they have no brain[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Astro...a fascinating move to focus on the existence of the avatar...:-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: seems just a bunch of individual cells with no consiousness but its still life[13:46] Mick Nerido: I think therefore i am aware of my existance...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: or a tree[13:46] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel[13:46] druth Vlodovic: we "exist" in SL to the extent to which we can affect it, if something existed which could have no effect on anything then it could not be said to exist[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: certain plants do have a basic neural pathway venus flytraps sense their pray by touch[13:47] herman Bergson: Very cryptic Druth....[13:47] Bejiita Imako: sl is a digital extension of ourselves[13:47] Mick Nerido: SL existence is 2 dimentional[13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on......![13:47] Astronomer Somerset: no sl is a medium that allows us to express our true selfs[13:48] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes sort of that[13:48] herman Bergson: the concept of self awareness implies that the agent can say..That is me[13:48] Doodus Moose: astro - if that is what you choose to express[13:48] herman Bergson: only few organisms are able to do that[13:49] herman Bergson: one is the human being...[13:49] herman Bergson: but some animals can show by their bhavior the same expression "That is me"[13:49] Doodus Moose: ahhh, the elephant in the mirror[13:49] herman Bergson: chimps, and elephants , yes[13:49] herman Bergson: dolphins too[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I have to go now[13:50] Bejiita Imako: o cu Gemma[13:50] Mick Nerido: What about Superman? lol[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:50] Doodus Moose: byee Gemma![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: bye gemma[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: byeee Gamma, TC[13:50] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma....[13:50] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...[13:51] herman Bergson: Gemma is right...[13:51] Adriana Jinn: thanks you professor[13:51] herman Bergson: it is about time to come to a conclusion...[13:51] Doodus Moose: i'm sure humans are the only beings yet to demonstrate a value of virtual items :-)[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok one last remark or question...:-)[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: at the very core of this question is a more fundamental question that needs to be understood befor we can truly answer these questions[13:52] druth Vlodovic: cats watching a hockey game do it :)[13:52] herman Bergson: which is Astro?[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: and that is what is thought[13:53] herman Bergson: or more precise perhaps...what is The Mind, Astro?[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: yes[[13:53] herman Bergson: Good conclusion...thnx![13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for the wonderful discussion....[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hmm this was very interesting[13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure[13:54] herman Bergson: Your question will be our main focus for what is to come Astro[13:54] Bejiita Imako: got me something to think about[13:54] Adriana Jinn: very interesting yes[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Adriana Jinn: have to read it quietly after hihihih[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Qwark Allen: awsome hermann[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] herman Bergson: Thx QWark..[13:55] Qwark Allen: i`ll read the begining in the blog[13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo![13:55] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!![13:55] Qwark Allen: ☆*¨¨*<♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''*<♥:*¨¨*☆[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \o/[13:55] Qwark Allen: |[13:55] Qwark Allen: / \[13:55] Qwark Allen: ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!![13:55] herman Bergson: All will be posted in the blog asap....Adriana[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....feeling......transparent.......[13:55] Qwark Allen: ok nice[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....getting .....cloudy.....[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney...[13:55] herman Bergson: RIght in time as usual ^_^[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:56] Rodney Handrick: that time zone thing[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..i have to read the lecture from the beginning[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!! ty class :-) see u nex week![13:57] herman Bergson: next week?[13:57] herman Bergson: ^_^ ?[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: danke auch von mir, next time is tuesday?[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye:-)[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy..Tuesday same time same place[13:57] netty Keng: servus[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all..see you next tuesday[14:00] druth Vlodovic: thanks for the lecture herman, it was interesting[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[14:01] druth Vlodovic: I'm afraid I'm off seeking food[14:01] druth Vlodovic: have fun all[14:01] herman Bergson: you are welcome Astro[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thats ok will you be back later[14:02] herman Bergson: anytime
In fact it is remarkable, that in the philosophy of mind we speak of "The Mind - Body PROBLEM". Is it really a problem and in what sense is it a problem?Let's see, what most people take for granted. Real facts:1. You have a mind and a body;2. These normally work together; 3. Your body is something physical and, thus, everybody can see you;4. However, nobody can look into your mind. We love stories of mind readers, but so far these are still fairy tales5. Which means that tho everybody can see your physical outside, you have privileged access to the content of your mind.These are apparently rather obvious facts of life. We all know that we have a body and a mind and that the mind is not the same as the body.But when you put these obvious facts under a philosophical magnifying glass, there may rise serious questions? Especially, ok….the body is physical, but the mind? What kind of material is a mind made of.And when I look at this physical body of mine, makes it sense to ask where my mind is? Is it really in my head, as I am inclined to think?The simplest position that makes sense regarding these questions is called Dualism, a philosophical answer to such questions developed by Descartes (1596 - 1650).Descartes thought to have proved that the mind really was distinct from the body. According to him there are two substances in the universe: the physical and the mental.The physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics. The mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness.The logic of Descartes arguments has had such an impact on our thinking about the mind, that we still are prone to take a dualistic approach when we talk about our body and mind.Maybe you could say, that Descartes showed with strong and logical arguments, that our common sense ideas about the existence of a mind in a body are justified.The arguments lead to two related conclusions: 1. that your mind is in no way the same thing as your body or any part of your body;2. that what is essential to you is not your body but your mind.Crucial to the argument is a basic principle which was later named by Leibniz (1646 -1717) the "indiscernibility of identicals".The basic idea is: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing-- then anything true of one is true of the other or more technically said: For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.I guess most of you will know Descartes strategy to discover absolutely certain knowledge. He would have loved the movie the Matrix and would have said…there, you see? All can be fake; everything is only in your mind. You can doubt almost everything.And here comes the proof, that Dualism MUST be right. Remember the "indiscernibility of identicals" principle. What does it tell us? If A and B are identical, are the very same thing, then what true is of A is true of B as well.So IF the body is identical with the mind …. remember the slogan "We are our brain!", then what is true of the body is true of the mind.However, I truly can doubt the reality of my body. I can imagine that I have a body or some evil demon makes me believe that I have a body.But can an evil demon make me imagine that I am doubting? Were I to doubt that I was doubting, I still would be doubting. The same applies to thinking. I still would be thinking. That means….whatever there is in reality, only of the existence of the mind, my mind, I can be absolutely certain.In other words, I say something that is true of my mind, which is not true of my body. So body and mind can not be identical substances. Thence Dualism is right!The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡[13:22] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::[13:22] Adriana Jinn: very interesting[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you Qwark...[13:23] Qwark Allen: i arrived just in time[13:23] herman Bergson: If anyone has a question or remark...the floor is yours ㋡[13:23] herman Bergson smiles[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: i can see that if the mind isn't visible there is no such thing as 2 thing, but only the body, a thinking body[13:23] Jenna Felton is Offline[13:23] herman Bergson: In coming lectures I'll show you that Dualism can't be true...[13:24] Qwark Allen: we are matter and electricity[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: that mean that there isn't a duality but or just a mind that we cannot see as a thing,[13:24] Qwark Allen: 2 different things[13:24] herman Bergson: Well.....[13:24] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that there really were two different substances....[13:25] herman Bergson: Therefor his ideas are called substance dualism....[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: this is the position of descartes as only the mind, as a thin with all into it, that made me think of the opposite[13:25] Mick Nerido: like earth, air water fire?[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll see in coming lectures that attempts have been made to uphold a weaker form of dualism[13:25] Qwark Allen: science nowadays says the same, we cannot explain conscience, but seems we are getting the idea how the brain process the information[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: why didn't he explore as leibniz the posibility of no 2 thing?[[13:26] herman Bergson: A philosopher he knew...Spinoza denied that there were two substances...[13:26] druth Vlodovic: because dualism explained the "inherent truths" that felt real due to their religious socialization as children[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its difficult to figure out where he had the confirmation of the mind as a substance,,,[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Druth.....Descartes has a religious bias...[13:27] herman Bergson: He had to leave matter to science en the mental/the soul to religion[13:27] herman Bergson: It was a kind of intellectual escape for him[13:28] herman Bergson: Spinoza was severely punished for his monistic ideas...[13:29] herman Bergson: He dared to say that when the body dies there doesn't remain a soul...[13:29] herman Bergson: that lives on for ever[13:29] herman Bergson: immortal soul...yes[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: so that would explain his rejection of the earthly body importance?[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes could leave that out of the debate[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: as low.... or insignificant, and all in the soul or mind or spirit?[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes ...since decartes western thought has put the ratio at first place....[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: well we had that influence a lot is it[13:30] herman Bergson: nowadays you see that we leave that position[13:31] herman Bergson: and say that we are not mainly RATIONAL beings...[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: lol[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: :)[13:31] herman Bergson: In fact Freud already pointed at that fact by defining the subconscious[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: in gestalt they pointed the subconscious into the body,,[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: when in contact with certain part of the body , lost memory came back[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes...but as something that influences our actions....[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: yes[13:33] herman Bergson: If nobody has any questions or so anymore.....[13:33] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation....[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: if the mind is linked to the body as separate throught the nervous wire, than those wire pass all throught it, i see a brain body....[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:33] Doodus Moose: Thanks, indeed, Professor![13:34] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll see how right Dualism is[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: thank you Herman - very interesting[13:34] herman Bergson: or wrong of course ㋡[13:34] Doodus Moose: hihi[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: its very interesting, mm my cup of tea[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: thanks[13:34] herman Bergson: My pleasure Alaya[13:35] Doodus Moose: now to use my mind to decide what to feed the body :-)[13:35] druth Vlodovic: what if we all get so firmly converted to dualism that you can't bring us back around?[13:35] Qwark Allen: very interesting as always[13:35] Qwark Allen paid you L$100.[13:35] herman Bergson: I am not afraid of that Druth....[13:35] Doodus Moose: byeeeeee!!!!!![13:35] herman Bergson: Philosophy is about clear and logical arguments.[13:36] Adriana Jinn: thank you very much professor[13:36] herman Bergson: So do Decartes arguments hold?[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll put that to the test![13:36] herman Bergson: It will be interesting ㋡[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:37] Adriana Jinn: as always[13:37] Mick Nerido: Mind over matter or matter over mind..[13:37] Qwark Allen: seems we are still in the mind/jar theme[13:37] herman Bergson: THAT is a dualistic way of thinking Mick[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: or again maybe not ;) - we will find out -maybe its just like someone said the other day: we need a new language ;)[13:38] Mick Nerido: That is our common sense way of thinking[13:38] herman Bergson: That may be true Ciska...[13:39] herman Bergson: In 1986 Patricia Churchland said so in her book Neurophilosophy[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: language makes borders too[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: not needed ones i guess - useless ones for understanding sometimes[13:39] herman Bergson: And there are others that claim that our mental concepts will become obsolete...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: yes...[13:40] herman Bergson: Like we now don't speak of spells and whitchcraft etc anymore...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: other words - same concept different way of seeing it ;)))[13:40] herman Bergson: yes....something like that[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well- we will see what you offer herman - always great to get insights ㋡[13:41] Mick Nerido: Thanks, bye[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: have a great time everyone[13:41] herman Bergson: Like water, earth, fire and air are no longer concepts in physics...[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks[13:41] herman Bergson: Bye ciska
Although Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) did not like to be called a behaviorist, he belongs to that group. He insisted that in any acceptable analysis of a mental concept the description of a person’s state of mind must make reference only to publicly detectable features of the organism and its behavior.His many subtle discussions of mental concepts are all attempts to identify the patterns of behavior whose display would constitute being in a given state of mind. To attribute that state of mind to someone is to attribute a disposition to display the relevant pattern of behavior.Thus mental states were dispositions to show specific patterns of behavior or these observable patterns of behavior themselves.The mental statement "I am in love" does not mean that my inner self or a mind or a soul is in a special state, but it means that I have the disposition to show a certain pattern of behavior.When you see this behavior, the first thing you would say then "Oh, he is in love". We'll get back to this behaviorist program in future lectures, but I can tell you already now, that it was an unsuccessful approach.Just one obvious criticism: pains, sudden unsought recollections or dreams are definitely mental states, but they resist any plausible dispositional analysis.The response to that criticism was formulated by a theory of mind known as central-state physicalism.The central-state physicalists held that although it may be that some mental states can be understood dispositionally, there are many mental states, items, or events that must be accorded a straightforwardly status of their own. These independent mental states turn out to be, as a matter of contingent fact, states of the central nervous system.In 1931, Herbert Feigl married Maria Kaspar and emigrated with her to the United States, settling in Iowa to take up a position in the philosophy department at the University of Iowa. In 1940, he accepted a position as professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota, where he remained for 31 years. He died in 1988.I mention him so explicitly, because his famous essay The "Mental" and the "Physical" (1958) was the cornerstone in my thesis with which I graduated at my university in 1977.I took the book from my bookshelf today, opened it and saw my diligent underlinings and scribbled notes in the margins of the pages.And there are his classic empiricist words, where he describes his contemporary dualists: -quote- "And some very persuasive arguments point simply to the existence (occurrence) if immediate experience, i.e. the raw feels or hard data of the directly given. They maintain that these data, though related to behavior and neurophysiological processes, are not reducible to, or definable in terms of, purely physical concepts; and that their occurrence is not predictable or explainable on the basis of physical laws and physical descriptions only" -end quote-Just realize that in 1958 behaviorism was the flourishing theory for a materialist interpretation of the mind and a refutation of dualistic interpretations.The neurobiological revolution still had to begin, which means that our perspective on the philosophy of mind is now supported by much more scientific data then in Feigl's time and in my time in 1977.This is what makes this project so exciting for me, as I am entering new realms of scientific knowledge myself today, which have a profound influence on contemporary philosophy of mind.Due to all this excitement it is really time to take some rest and time to study. Therefore the Summerbreak begins and my next lecture will be at the first of September. Thank you all for your interest during this year again…. and enjoy the vacation.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney....:-)[13:23] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:23] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman[13:23] Carmela Sandalwood: what would Wittgenstein have said about PET scans?[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark..feel free..the floor is yours[13:24] herman Bergson: We also can begin our vacation now of course ^_^[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i think you missed a question from Carmela[13:25] herman Bergson: oh sorry....[13:25] herman Bergson: That is difficult to say Carmela...[13:26] herman Bergson: his approach was mainly based on conceptual analysis...[13:26] herman Bergson: while our approach today is so much more influenced by detailed knowledge of the brain...[13:26] Rodney Handrick: We're talking about Wittgenstein, right?[13:27] herman Bergson: The one and only Rodney :-)[13:27] Rodney Handrick: thanks[13:27] Carmela Sandalwood: positrons weren't even known when Wittgenstein was active[13:27] herman Bergson: no..not even the detailed structure of the brain as we know it now...[13:28] herman Bergson: Philosophically we are in such a different landscape today....[13:28] herman Bergson: Like they took dispositions to act as for real[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: so what does our imprved knowledge say about the nature of mind?[13:29] herman Bergson: while we now know that the awareness of such a disposition is there AFTER the brain already has set the proces in motion...[13:29] Mick Nerido: That is still hard to believe[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...Carmela.at least, that we are our brian....[13:30] herman Bergson: One of the goals of this project is to evaluate THAT statement...[13:31] herman Bergson: Today , as a difference with 1977, in the philosophy of mind, philosophy and several sciences are closely interconnected...[13:32] Paula Kayvon is Offline[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: Dennett has some very good proposals about studying 'internal states of mind'[13:33] herman Bergson: He IS on the menu Carmela :-)[13:34] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman, have a great vacation, see you in Sept.[13:34] herman Bergson: Good idea Mick.....[13:34] herman Bergson: Let's take it easy today ^_^[13:34] herman Bergson: So...thank you all for your participation again :-)[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: oh, OK[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..have a nice vacation[13:35] herman Bergson: Unless you have a burning question left of course[13:35] herman Bergson: If not.....[13:36] herman Bergson: Class dismmissed and a nice vacation to your all[13:36] 방랑자 (tauto): thank you herman :)[13:36] herman Bergson: You are welcome Tauto[13:36] 방랑자 (tauto): and have a cool and fruitful vacation all of you [13:37] 방랑자 (tauto): see you later beertje and Rodney and herman [13:37] herman Bergson: ok Tauto…[13:37] Rodney Handrick: ok bye[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): See you in september Tauto[13:38] 방랑자 (tauto): ok Beertje :)
After our sidetrack on the question "What is matter?", let's return to our main road, that of investigating materialism itself.If fact, for a materialist, it hardly matters, what matter is made of. Atoms, molecules, whatever, maybe with the exception that matter complies to laws of nature.When you look at the history of materialism, you look at the basic philosophical question "What exists?" And it is astonishing to see how the human mind has answered that question.Materialism, and thence monism, has been a theme in European speculative thought from the earliest periods for which there is any record. In the previous lecture I already mentioned Leucippus and his pupil Democritus, who lived in the 5th center BCE!Their basic idea was that the fundamental stuff was of just one kind (matter) and that the fundamental entities were material atoms. These atoms are in constant motion in a void that surrounds them.Then when you look at a few theses that can be deduced from their "atom theory" and when you ask yourself the question "How can a human mind come to such insights", if you take into account that those Greeks had no technology whatsoever, that could have suggested these conclusions, it is amazing.Theses about what is formulated more than 2500 years ago!(1) Nothing exists but atoms and empty space.(2) Nothing happens by chance (for no reason at all);everything occurs for a reason and of necessity.This necessity is natural and mechanical; it excludes teleological necessitation.(3) Nothing can arise out of nothing; nothing that is can be destroyed. All novelties are merely new combinations or separations of atoms.The conclusions you can come to drawn from these theses are far reaching. The world is purely mechanical, an idea that became the basis of of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.Teleological necessitation is excluded. This means that matter, or we could say, the world, just is as it is, changing because of mechanical, that is causal processes. But there is now direction in that process, not a necessary goal it is steering at."Nothing can arise out of nothing" is an interesting thesis because of its implications. It leads to a number of metaphysical riddles. One is: there never was a creation. Do we have to conclude that there was never a beginning?How do we have to understand the Big Bang from this perspective? Is our mind in any way able to understand the concept of Beginning?When you look at the history of materialism you see, that this kind of thinking was suppressed for almost 1500 years. Religious thinking, in this case christianity, was so dominant and powerful, that materialism was just a heresy and good for the stake.From the close of the classical period until the Renaissance the church and Aristotle so dominated European speculation that materialist theories virtually lapsed.Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), who in the last part of his life taught astronomy at the Royal College in Paris, was the first one who brought materialism back in the spotlights.But he still needed a trick. To bring his materialist ideas into closer conformity with Christian doctrine, he claimed that the atoms are not eternal but created. They are finite, not infinite, in number and are organized in our particular world by a providential determination of initial conditions.In England Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was much more consistent and uncompromising. Hobbes hoped to use the new non-Aristotelian physics of the seventeenth century as the basis for a final, complete account of reality.No part of the universe is not a body, said Hobbes, and no part of the universe contains no body.Hobbes was a plenist, holding all space to be filled by an intangible material ether if nothing else.And then Descartes stepped in. The influence of Gassendi and Hobbes was diminished by the prestige of their brilliant contemporary, ReneDescartes (1596–1650), who accepted a materialist and mechanical account of the inanimate world and the brute creation but insisted that men had immaterial, immortal spirits whose essential nature lay in conscious thought undetermined by causal processes.According to Descartes, there are in the world two quite different sortsnof things, extended (material) substances and thinking (spiritual) substances, which are mysteriously united in the case of humankind.So, after the Middle Ages, which was a dark period for materialism, we now got stuck for another 300 years with the dominance of Dualism, which was politically much more correct than monism.The Discussion[2011/06/23 13:25] herman Bergson: to be continued ....thank you :-))[2011/06/23 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok[2011/06/23 13:26] Mick Nerido: Care to speculate how the Greeks came up with Monism with no tech to hepl them discover it?[2011/06/23 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): all conflicting as usual[2011/06/23 13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how could Leucippus and Democritus know that there were things like atoms?[2011/06/23 13:27] herman Bergson: That is what I find so fascinating Mick[2011/06/23 13:27] herman Bergson: I have no idea how they could develop such a model of reality...[2011/06/23 13:27] Mick Nerido: The GREEKS HAD MANY GODS[2011/06/23 13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): those philosophers knew more than we give them credit for[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): as far as the physical world goes[2011/06/23 13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma.....but the idea of atoms....[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i know :-)[2011/06/23 13:28] herman Bergson: First they thought all was composed of earth , air , water and fire[2011/06/23 13:28] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but maybe their idea of atom is different from the microscopic atom[2011/06/23 13:28] Mick Nerido: Yes there philosophers were like scientists[2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: the elements yes[2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah![2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: the word atom mean unsplitable[2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: but later we found out thats not the case either[2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and then guess what!![2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yep[2011/06/23 13:30] herman Bergson: Well...just the belief that all things were composed of small particles and just become what they are by configuration of the particles...[2011/06/23 13:30] herman Bergson: and not by properties of the particles themselves[2011/06/23 13:31] Mick Nerido: Very strange that they came to this theory with no tech...[2011/06/23 13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[2011/06/23 13:31] herman Bergson: I have no idea why their reasoning went in such a monist direction[2011/06/23 13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Mick the more you think about it the more fascinating it becomes[2011/06/23 13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: But it is the work of the human mind.....[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: There is however a consequence......[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: more than 2500 years ago there was amodel of reality implanted in our thinking....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: we still use that model.....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: I would say basically for pragmatic reasons...[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: But when it comes to the mind.....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: the model isnt complete....[2011/06/23 13:34] Tauto Resident: I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but[2011/06/23 13:34] Tauto Resident: Guess what is called the prototype of the model do?[2011/06/23 13:35] Mick Nerido: The Greeks were great theorists inventing Geomerty etc...[2011/06/23 13:35] herman Bergson: Yes.....quite different from what they now are ^_^[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: y[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: the saying[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: already the old greeks[2011/06/23 13:35] herman Bergson: Well Tauto....[2011/06/23 13:36] Mick Nerido: Mathematics had a lot do do with their thinking[2011/06/23 13:36] herman Bergson: the basic model of reality is that it is constructed out of small particles[2011/06/23 13:36] (tauto): i just can't follow as fast as and as acurate all.[2011/06/23 13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes[2011/06/23 13:36] herman Bergson: The interaction between brain and environment has created that idea...[2011/06/23 13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is this old idea true?[2011/06/23 13:37] herman Bergson: That is the point Beertje....You CAN ask that question.....[2011/06/23 13:38] Mick Nerido: perhaps we instinctivly reflect the true material world in our brains[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: and when it comes to the mind....seen from a materialist point of view you have a problem...[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: all that exists is matter....ok[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: this matter.....our brain chemistry is than said, produses the mind....[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: is the mind material too?[2011/06/23 13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmm[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: If not what isit then?[2011/06/23 13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and if it's true..can we re arrange it?[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: Is it a feature of the brain chemistry[2011/06/23 13:40] Tauto Resident: Many psychologists are still other kinds of brain and mind can believe that.[2011/06/23 13:40] herman Bergson: like liquidity is a feature of H2O molecules?[2011/06/23 13:40] herman Bergson: We still have a long way to go to get these questions answered[2011/06/23 13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[2011/06/23 13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): maybe another 2500 years...[2011/06/23 13:41] Bejiita Imako: is an interesting question indeed whaqt makes up the mind[2011/06/23 13:41] herman Bergson: Oh we will have a lot of fun with that question Bejiita :-)[2011/06/23 13:41] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL[2011/06/23 13:41] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): over and over[2011/06/23 13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma ......[2011/06/23 13:42] Tauto Resident: I have to wonder. For example, brain damage or remove any part make them human morality says about whether to have.[2011/06/23 13:42] Mick Nerido: lucky the greek ideas were not lost...[2011/06/23 13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): how many classes are we up to now[2011/06/23 13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): strange thing..that some protein can influence the mind..like Alzheimer[2011/06/23 13:42] herman Bergson: But I yet believe that by the end of this project you really have a better understanding of the situation we are in[2011/06/23 13:43] herman Bergson: yes Beertje..and what you say Tauto.....[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: We only can say then that the Brain is the Mind[2011/06/23 13:44] (tauto): i wish i have exactly accurate translator.[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: such a thing doesn't exist Tauto....unfortunately[2011/06/23 13:44] Î∞©ÎûëÏûê (tauto): oh..[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: One of the big differences between the mind and acomputer....[2011/06/23 13:45] herman Bergson: A computer isn't able to give MEANING to words...[2011/06/23 13:45] herman Bergson: especially within a context...[2011/06/23 13:45] (tauto): i see.[2011/06/23 13:45] (taut): i try to write a exact word in english then.[2011/06/23 13:46] herman Bergson: The plane banks to the bank of the river to avoid crashing into the bank in mainstreet[2011/06/23 13:46] Mick Nerido: Greek word "nous" not translatable into English[2011/06/23 13:46] herman Bergson: Well...you could translate it as mind[2011/06/23 13:47] (tauto): ^^[2011/06/23 13:47] Mick Nerido: But not exact translated my point[2011/06/23 13:47] herman Bergson: But it included also the soul[2011/06/23 13:47] herman Bergson: no...I agree[2011/06/23 13:48] Mick Nerido: A great class, I must go thanks all for a stimulating discussion[2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye „ã° [2011/06/23 13:48] Î∞©ÎûëÏûê (tauto): bye Mick[2011/06/23 13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick[2011/06/23 13:48] herman Bergson: Bye mick...thank you too[2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL [2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i wont see you til september[2011/06/23 13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu mick[2011/06/23 13:48] Bejiita Imako: very interesting for sure[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: Well....when Mick leaves....I cant hold you here any longer ^_^[2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: So...thank you all for your participation...[2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! [2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for class[2011/06/23 13:49] Bejiita Imako: nice once again[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-))[2011/06/23 13:49] (tauto): thank you herman and all.[2011/06/23 13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu[2011/06/23 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank You Herman..i have a lot to think about again:)[2011/06/23 13:50] herman Bergson: ok Beertje ^_^[2011/06/23 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye everybody...
