295: A Mirror in your Brain

In his theater play "Huis close" [Closed doors] Jean Paul Sartre makes one of the characters say": "L'enfer c'est l'autre." [Hell is other people]. The idea is that the other is a mirror showing your own shortcomings.

But is Sartre right? Isn't it equally true, that we only can experience love and kindness because of the other? And isn't it true, that the most severe punishment for a human is absolute isolation. Isn't loneliness our heaviest burden to carry?

We are social animals. According to theory our social way of life was one of the powers in evolution which stimulated the development of our brain and our intelligence. The smarter we are the better we can live in a group.

There is a steadily growing interest in social behavior among neuroscientists: the brain as a social organ. You should not investigate the brain in isolation, but in its working in a social context.

This means that today phenomena like prejudices, personal attitudes and social conflicts are now studied in relation to neural and physiological processes, which are involved.

In an experiment with white and black Americans the test persons were shown a series of pictures of faces. In the beginning the amygdala, a small part in the brain responsible for emotions - especially fear-, fired.

After having seen the portraits a number of time the activity of the amygdale decreased….. except when the test person saw a face of the opposite race.

But there happened something even more interesting. This amygdala activity showed up all the time when test persons were shown faces for 30 milliseconds per portrait.

However, when the faces were shown for a period of 525 milliseconds something happened. The more areas in the frontal cortex became active, the more the activity of the amygdala decreased.

That part of the brain, the frontal cortex, is associated with the ability to estimate, regulate and control. The more activity in the frontal cortex the more the activity of the amygdala decreased.

In the social group we invent our behavior. This enables us to transcend biological instincts. An interesting question here is : where does this ability come from? A serious candidate for this are the so-called mirror neurons.

These mirror neurons were in fact discovered just by accident. In 1996 three researchers of the University of Parma (Italy) were studying the brains process of rhesus monkeys with respect to some grab movements.

The brains of the monkeys were wired with electrodes, which activated equipment when they grabs an object. When the specified areas of the brian fired a sound was hear.

During a lunch break the equipment began to make sounds, but when they checked the monkeys…none of them was moving. They sat quietly in their cages.

But who had moved was one of the researchers. He had walked over to a fruit bowl and picked up some fruit, which was observed by the monkeys.

After thorough testing the researchers discovered that observing the grabbing of some fruit activated the pre-motoric neurons of the monkeys. That means that the brain activity of the person who grabs a banana is "mirrored" in the brain of an observer of the action.

This was an important discovery. Philosophically you can relate it to the problem of "Other minds"…. How do we know that other persons have an independent conscious mind, independent of mine?

Superficially spoken you could say that at least our brain assumes this by mirroring brain processes, that go on in another brain.

It is now generally assumed that there exist systems of mirror neurons in the human brain too, which are located in the frontal and parietal lobs of the brain.

in the next lecture we'll have a closer look at the phenomenon of mirror neurons and what their role might be.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:21] herman Bergson: and hello Paula ..nice to see you again ^_^
[13:21] Paula Dix: hi! :))
[13:21] Qwark Allen: very interesting herman
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: aa yes
[13:22] Paula Dix: saddly a bit late
[13:22] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark..the floor is yours :-)
[13:22] Qwark Allen: i`ll check it out
[13:22] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, what a pleasure Paula
[13:22] Cyberpedia Bolissima: u c in me what u need me 2 b 4 u 2 c urself
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: thats almost like mind reading
[13:22] Paula Dix: my pleasure, i really missed you all
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: hi Paula
[13:22] Paula Dix: hi :)
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita..it is an interesting phenomenon and they hardly canexplain it
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: But I'll get to that in the next lecture
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: that if i see someone doing something whatever might be it activate the same things in my brain that would control my movements for example dancing
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: even i dont move myself
[13:24] Paula Dix: did you mention that case oliver sachs told in his book?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well what makes you so tired looking at an action movie....?
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: well then if i see someone dance it makes me want to do that too cause i like it a lot, its fun
[13:24] herman Bergson: your brain is mirroring all that muscle movements
[13:24] herman Bergson: :-)
[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): is there a insinuation of a super-communal conection between individuals
[13:25] Paula Dix: ok, so we just need to see that gymnastic shows on tv?
[13:25] herman Bergson: I wouldn't say that Aristotle...
[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): hmmm
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: hmm might be thats why I am so good at many of the moves in a web series i watch about some super dancers
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: LXD
[13:25] herman Bergson: lol...yes Paula and you keep your fine shape..lol
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:25] Paula Dix: lol
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: interesting idea
[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: a connection to the other is necessary for survival ari..
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: take child-mother..
[13:26] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but twins then in each of us that is provoked by other's behavior
[13:26] herman Bergson: At least ist is a special phenomenon...
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: facial expressions we receive like language information
[13:26] herman Bergson: There is a behavioral trick...I sometimes used it...
[13:27] herman Bergson: When you look at someones face and you give your own face the same expression....you 'feel' what the other feels
[13:27] herman Bergson: When you look at body language...
[13:27] Paula Dix: interesting!
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aah
[13:28] herman Bergson: People also mirror poses and gestures
[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): would that require common life experiences?
[13:28] herman Bergson: Just observe two people talking ....
[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): sadness, joy etc
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: social life ari.
[13:28] herman Bergson: I dont think so Aristotle...it is caused by direct observation
[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): a mimick only then?
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: no mirror without a mirror..
[13:29] Paula Dix: maybe you need the experience to name it and talk about, but not to feel
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes..
[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): hmmm
[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): then we learn the behavior by observing the other
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: not necessarily paula.. you can feel the same when someone gets hurt..
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...to some extend the mirror neurons are the way we learn behavior from others
[13:30] Paula Dix: yes, exactly, you always feel the other, but only can talk about if you know the names
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: so as we know what it means to cut one's finger
[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and indicates some kind of training of our own minds
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: better..we react
[13:30] herman Bergson: Oh yes....
[13:30] herman Bergson: when you see another hurt himself..in a way you feel it too
[13:31] herman Bergson: That is why I hate those programs with home videos...
[13:31] Paula Dix: empathy? or thats only for some kind of more subtile emotions?
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: could be sharing pleasure too paula
[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I have pondered on how terrible it wold be to lose a loved one to a certain accident and actually cringed at the thought
[13:32] herman Bergson: where people fall and hurt themselves.....and we are expected to find it funny to watch it...
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: why do people cry at the end of "Gone with the wind.."
[13:32] herman Bergson: No PAula....this IS about empathy indeed
[13:32] Paula Dix: yes herman thats terrible!
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: or feel glad when julia roberts gets richard gere
[13:32] Paula Dix: ok, so empathy names all the possibilities
[13:33] herman Bergson: yeah..that's better Baldur ^_^
[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I have always been baffled at the humor of America FavortieVideo clips
[13:33] herman Bergson: lol...I can imagine Aristotle....
[13:33] herman Bergson: the risks people take there...unbelievable
[13:33] Paula Dix: i dont know these videos but am imagining
[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the accidents make you flinch
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: I find it horrible....
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: there you got your mirror neuronms ari
[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and some folks find it funny
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: like jackass
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: they are insane
[13:34] herman Bergson: some in the videos definitely ^_^
[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): jackass is an appropriate title
[13:35] Paula Dix: i know some people dont feel the others, but to do so with yourself!
[13:35] herman Bergson: Well actually this is also a brain issue...
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: zeit an ein ruhiges plaetzchen zu denken..xxx
[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, I wonder how the mirror neurons works in psychopaths
[13:35] herman Bergson: people that don;t feel fear have often deteriorated amygdalas
[13:36] Paula Dix: ah, interesting!
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hmm ok
[13:36] herman Bergson: Problem is Aristotel...
[13:36] herman Bergson: that such things don't work in psychpats...
[13:36] herman Bergson: they can watch the face of a person they are strangling.....and dont feel the fear and panic of the other at all...they don't even see it
[13:37] herman Bergson: This also is due to a malfunction in the brain
[13:37] Paula Dix: can they loearn to identify the feelings?
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: shouldn't we rather say we don't know much about it yet..so we can'ttell about pschopaths
[13:37] Paula Dix: i dont know if you know the series Dexter
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, Dester is interesting
[13:37] herman Bergson: What is that Paula?
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Dexter*
[13:37] Beertje (beertje.beaumont): and people who have too much fear?
[13:38] Paula Dix: its about a guy who likes to kill
[13:38] Paula Dix: but he is adopted by a policeman who notices how he is while children
[13:38] Paula Dix: and train him to only kill people who deserves
[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, he only kills killers
[13:38] Paula Dix: he is crazy for blood and works as a blood specialist on police
[13:39] herman Bergson: oh my policeman becomes judge an jury
[13:39] Paula Dix: its very interestng
[13:39] Paula Dix: his dad code makes him go after proof
[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes he is that Herman, but tries to have a family at the same time
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: as interesting as why normal people became guards in auschwitz
[13:39] Paula Dix: and he is ultra inteligent, learn to mimic emotions and have a fake normal life
[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes Paula he adapts with his mimicry
[13:40] Paula Dix: i was wondering if this learning emotions is possible for them in real life
[13:40] herman Bergson: One thing is for sure....
[13:40] herman Bergson: these days lots of things are discovered about the brain
[13:40] herman Bergson: but believe me...we still know just a little of it...
[13:41] Paula Dix: lol yes, there are still people telling we use only 10% of brain
[13:41] herman Bergson: and here I not even want to mention the philosophical problems regarding consciousness....
[13:41] Paula Dix: maybe true in some cases
[13:41] herman Bergson: that is for a later date ^_^
[13:42] herman Bergson: The brain is like a universe Paula...
[13:42] herman Bergson: it contains as much neurons as stars in our galaxy...:-)
[13:42] Paula Dix: that will be interesting. i've been reading the site, finished up to august
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: yes..and we are galileo at the moment
[13:42] Paula Dix: lol
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:42] herman Bergson: If we are lucky Baldur....if we are lucky...
[13:42] Paula Dix: its exciting!
[13:43] herman Bergson: But we are definitely making progress :-)
[13:43] Paula Dix: and most people says there is nothing going on!
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:43] herman Bergson: oh forget it....a LOT is going on....
[13:43] herman Bergson: but because it are small steps it doesn't reach the new papers
[13:44] Paula Dix: oh herman, have you read David Deutsch already? A friend was telling about him, seems very interesting
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: what's his subject paula
[13:44] Paula Dix: yes, and people just dont look for it...
[13:44] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): The problem I see in mapping the brain is its evolution, I doubt it can ever be completed
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes..who is he?
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: testing
[13:44] Paula Dix: he is a physician, but talks about philosophy also
[13:45] Paula Dix: he starts with multiverse, explains why he believes its real
[13:45] herman Bergson: Mapping the brain is a mega project Aristotle...
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: evolution of the brain material will take thousand of years ari..
[13:45] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the flux of life
[13:45] Paula Dix: oh, sorry, physicist
[13:46] herman Bergson: I'll check out the name Paula :-)
[13:46] Paula Dix: there is something of him on TED, very nice
[13:46] herman Bergson: ah..ok
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: natuaL Scientists making philosophical conclusions.. interesting but often misleading
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:47] herman Bergson: I think in next lecture we will focus on the phenomenon of empathy...
[13:47] Paula Dix: the fabric of reality is his main book
[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): that will be interesting Herman
[13:47] Paula Dix: lol ok, sorry for the detour
[13:47] herman Bergson: thx Paula...:-)
[13:47] herman Bergson: So ..thank you all for your participation again....
[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): would be nice to find out who invented empathy
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: Nice discussion....
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: ty herman..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: interesting once again ㋡
[13:48] Beertje (beertje.beaumont): very interesting
[13:48] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor
[13:48] Paula Dix: lol Ari
[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You Professor - Interesting as always
[13:48] Cain Levasseur: thank you all its been an interesting class and debate
[13:48] herman Bergson: You are welcome Cain
[13:49] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): good to have you Cain
[13:49] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): come back
[13:49] Cain Levasseur: thanks

294: Another Rationalist's error

Modern moral philosophers generally agree that altruism is important to morality, although they disagree about what it is, how to explain it, and what its scope should be.

The nineteenth-century French theorist Auguste Comte, who first coined the term altruism, claimed that the way to end social conflict is by training people to “live for others,” rather than themselves.

In a popular sense, altruism means something like noble self-sacrifice. A more minimal understanding, one that many philosophers favor, is an acknowledgment that the interests of others make claims on us and limit what we may do.

David Hume in the eighteenth century characterizes altruism in terms of particular benevolent dispositions, desires, or affections. According to this view, you help others because you love them.

Hume also thought that we possess the capacity to act from sympathy. When you see someone in distress, sympathy leads you to feel distress, which in turn motivates you to alleviate your distress by alleviating theirs.

By contrast, philosophers in the Kantian tradition conceive of altruism as a rational requirement on action. They claim there is no need to postulate a benevolent desire to explain altruism.

To mention a contemporary view, the Dutch leader of the "Intelligent Design" moment states: " For sociobiology and evolutionary ethics altruistic behavior is biologically perverse and pathological, because it is against the very nature of man. But in most cultures and important religions real artistic behavior is regarded as a high ideal."

While Hume was closer to the truth than Kant, who claims the primacy of rationality, the statement of the ID supporter is ultimate nonsense.

Darwin already described how our moral sense originates from social instincts which are important for the survival of the group. You see it with all species which have to rely on co-operation, like primates, elephants or wolves.

An other prominent ID - supporter said in an interview in 2006: "Jesus says: Love God above all and your fellowman like yourself. That is a moral duty, a law which is hard to understand or scientifically investigate with research methods of physical sciences. And yet there exists a sense of good and evil".

Again wrong. To possess the ability of empathy, empathize with others, is the basis of all moral behavior and evolution has embedded this in our brain.

It is reasonable to assume that during evolution the willingness to help each other has evolved from the care of siblings to the care of members of the group.

Thus loyalty to the own family and then to the own community has evolved into a moral duty. When this is all taken care of the loyalty will expand to a region, a nation. One day maybe to even global loyalty.

Another iD supporter claimed that "[..] humans are the only primates which think about moral standards." Again a mistake. Most of the time we do't think at all about our actions, but we act fast and instinctively moral based on our biological makeup.

Afterwards we come up with a story, a justification of our actions, while the real source of the actions are neural networks in our brain.

It is proven, that our brain is often ahead of our consciousness and that our justification of an action comes after the brain already has made the decisions and pushed the right buttons.

The amygdala is an early evolutionary part of the brain, specialized among other things in the emotion of fear. The experiment is thus: a test person sees a picture of a face for no more than 33 milliseconds.

Some faces show fear , others joy or indifference, but you can't see that in 33 milliseconds…. Yet, the sensory system is that fast and with every sighting of a face expressing fear, the amygdala shows extra activity, although the test person says "I didn't see any expression in the faces."

Another interesting phenomenon - and I will get back to that in the next lecture - are 'mirror-neurons". These are neurons for a certain functions, for instants grabbing something. They fire when you grab something….but they also fire when you only SEE somebody grabbing something.

We'll continue next Tuesday…..thank you.


The Discussion

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: Ah Hope....did you miss a lot?
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: 19.20 second phrase . the basis od scientific understanding 19.22 right too....and all you said afterwords i agree---but where and how does your concept of morality fit intothe picture
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: smile you see i didn't miss a thing
[13:26] herman Bergson: basically…it is about the idea of altruism....
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): interesting that after all the philosophers thoughts down the ages now it comes down to neurons
[13:27] herman Bergson: is the human being like Hobbes said....a wolf for his fellowmen...or like Hume did....feeling sympathy for the other
[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: altruism.. a necessity for a society whioxch raise it s youngs for a long time
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...that excites me the most....
[13:27] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): or so the neuro folks say
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes loo
[13:28] herman Bergson: To say it in a blunt way..Hume was right , Kant was wrong...
[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am not convinced
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: kant knew what he knew..
[13:28] herman Bergson: Most interesting is that the prefrontal lob of the brain is the latest evolutionary part of the brain...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But....
[13:29] herman Bergson: It is also our ability to be rational...
[13:29] Mick Nerido: Where does conciousness fit in here?
[13:29] herman Bergson: However....in matters of altruism..other parts of the brain are active
[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the poking and proding of the celluar tissue still does not explain what initiates the unassisted poke
[13:30] herman Bergson: earlier evolutionary parts...
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: i think before anything rational..it was the fact that the brain could develop abstract thought which made it evolve
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: to say.. go beyond the survival aspects
[13:31] herman Bergson: A second...
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: which are inborn
[13:31] herman Bergson: @MIck....
[13:31] herman Bergson: for the moment we leave out the discussion on consciousness....just a pragmatic choice
[13:31] herman Bergson: it will be discussed later in this course
[13:32] herman Bergson: You will be surprise dhat is innate in our brain Baldur.....
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: smile..
[13:32] herman Bergson: there was an experiment with 5 months old babies...
[13:32] herman Bergson: they were shown three pictures...
[13:32] herman Bergson: black and white....
[13:33] herman Bergson: picture one...a spider
[13:33] herman Bergson: picture two a spider but with all parts places wrongly
[13:33] herman Bergson: picture three a spider but all parts a bit random...
[13:34] herman Bergson: the amygdala of the babies fired at picture one.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well you might think...maybe they already had seen spiders or so...
[13:34] herman Bergson: thence test two
[13:34] herman Bergson: Picture one..a flower
[13:35] herman Bergson: picture two flowers but with parts displaced
[13:35] herman Bergson: picture three a flower with parts randomly places...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I made a mistake...it wasn't the amygdala that fired....
[13:36] herman Bergson: it was the length of time the babies looked with interest at the pictures...sorry...
[13:36] herman Bergson: only the spider picture kept them looking for a significant longer period of time...
[13:36] herman Bergson: You might say....
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): so their attention span was shorter on the irregular pictures?
[13:37] herman Bergson: ok...but we have no dangerous siders here...
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: friedrich I MADE experiments with new born babies.. around 1250.. to find out what humans are like.. and don't you trust all the experiments.. at least not all conclusions made.. experiments are made.. but knowledge of the brain is still inits baby shoes
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): span
[13:37] herman Bergson: yes ..on all other pictures...
[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the inference is that they knew them to be false representations
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: knew ari?
[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: someone tested that with stuff the mothers of the babys could not know because it doesn't exist in their part of the world?
[13:38] herman Bergson: The explanation can be that the homo sapiens comes from Africa...where there are a lot of dangerous spiders...
[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): somehow?
[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): so it is ingrained in us to fear spiders?
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: WELL that i think is baloney
[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...the fear of spiders which is complete nonsense in Europe is still deeply embeded in our brain :-)
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i am not sure i think experiments with 5 month olds can be judged properly
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: so even if u havent seen a spider before u still know how one looks because its programmed in at birthh genetically?
[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: same me gemma
[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): hmmm, I am an anomaly, slipers and snakes only are on my rational radar
[13:40] myxtc: were these girl babies or boy babies?
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: no..herman.. i made the experience with my little sister..
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: life rl
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: and could prove that'it's a wrong assumption
[13:40] herman Bergson: Basic idea is that there is a lot innate in our brain
[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): well that is anecdotal at best 1 person
[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): are you a bully Baldur?
[13:41] Mick Nerido: So children who recognized spider had a survival advantage?
[13:41] herman Bergson: That would be the conclusion Mick
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hmm interesting
[13:41] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): interesting yes
[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): of course that makes Darwinian sense
[13:41] herman Bergson: Sure...
[13:41] Alexia Rodeyn: can you say they recognized spiders ?
[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): interesting
[13:41] Alexia Rodeyn: seems too much for a 5 months
[13:42] herman Bergson: No Alexia...they did not recognize spiders...that is a conscious act....
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and 5 month old infants are very varied in their progression
[13:42] herman Bergson: But recall what I said about the amygdala experiment....
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: if they have seen one before might be but if they never have seen one and still they can recognize a pic of it
[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): hmmm, something to think about for sure
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: INNATE.. yes but what is innate and what is learned?
[13:43] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): wel maybe it is instinctual yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: No..it goes deeper....
[13:43] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I just love these jewels
[13:43] herman Bergson: in 33 miliseconds you are not able to see the expression on a face consciously....
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yet the brain reacts immediately...
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: innate would mean genetically based.. learned wouldemean culturally
[13:43] herman Bergson: when it is an expression of fear
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: also interesting
[13:44] herman Bergson: Well you see it all the time....
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: lets look at language
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: we all think of language as words
[13:44] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): might be on the same level as animals knowing not to eat poisoness plants
[13:44] herman Bergson: take a herd of wilderbeasts....
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: but if i dont see the expression myself and was consious of it how could i then react
[13:44] herman Bergson: One starts to run.....did he see danger?....all follow....
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: but facial expressions -body expressions-- arfenot controlled by the mind
[13:45] herman Bergson: they dont bring it into vote first
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: but its like reflexes i guess however a reflex generate a response wich that woudnt do
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: some might be genetical..some learned..
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....
[13:45] herman Bergson: Our brain is cheating on us all the time....
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: even if a part on my brain could react on it if im not consious of it i coundnt make my body react to it
[13:46] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the 33 milliseconds is like 'Danger Will Robinson'
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: smile..that's where mirror neurons play a role.. not just for us humans
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and just would say " i didnt see any expressions at all"
[13:46] herman Bergson: Let me give you an example.....
[13:46] herman Bergson: Stereo....
[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): this ability has to be ancient
[13:47] herman Bergson: Stereo...
[13:47] Mick Nerido: So our kind of brain is an inevitable evolutionary adapation?
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: like radar for bats?
[13:47] herman Bergson: You hear a sound move from the right box to the left speaker box
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: sorry sonar
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes that i can very clearly hear if it does
[13:47] herman Bergson: what really happens is that there is a sound to the left and then to the right....
[13:48] herman Bergson: you would believe that you first hear the left speaker box and then the right....
[13:48] herman Bergson: But that isnt the case at all....
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: we're a lousy species compared to what we find in other animals-as far as senses are concerned
[13:49] herman Bergson: your brain filled in the tones between left and right as if you hear the sound move and your conscious then comes up wth the story you hear the sound move from left to right
[13:49] Mick Nerido: Yes but we build machines to extend our senses
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: i think it have something to do with even if sound moves very fast the brain can detect which ear recieved it firt
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: because even if i hear a sound equally strong in both ears I can still hear where it comes from
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: left or right
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: smile..not toextend.. in a way tocheat on our senses which cheat on us lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: the basic fact is that consiousness cooks up stories which are only explanations afterwards....
[13:50] herman Bergson: We will get to that issue later...
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: conciousness..you said we talk about that later
[13:51] herman Bergson: Neurobiologists even claim that free will is a delusion...
[13:51] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): 'covering our tracks' LOL
[13:51] herman Bergson: When you decide to raise your arm...the brain already has pushed all the buttons before you can say "I gonna raise my arm"
[13:51] Mick Nerido: Biocenterism claimes reality is only real to an observer
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: maybe not a delusion..but has to be defined in a new way..and not on the basis of the ancients
[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): these neurobiologist are a peculiar lot :)
[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I suspect they will be in charge someday
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes aristotle,they are....
[13:52] herman Bergson: We will see a lot more of them :-)
[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: ari.,.when they have to face the physics they have to rethink again
[13:53] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): knowledge is power, power is dangerous
[13:53] Mick Nerido: The brain is a frontier yet
[13:53] herman Bergson: no..power isn't dangerous at all Aristotle...
[13:54] herman Bergson: The use of power can be dangerous
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: just need to use it right
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: as we are talking about molecules..and in physics they search for belowt he moleculesneurobiologists are working with
[13:54] Mick Nerido: Who decides right?
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...that is the goal of this project...to be at that frontier
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: its like a chainsaw or knife and such, if u use it right its not dangerous
[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL, so far who has been able to resist corruption?
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: u just need how to use it right
[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: good question mick
[13:55] Mick Nerido: I think right actions change with what is needed
[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: ari..mankind has only a couple of years in worldhistory. so corruption can't be eliminated that quickly
[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: which is nothing else than profit for one's self..or a group
[13:56] herman Bergson: OK...I guess we have got the picture....
[13:56] herman Bergson: overwhelming problems to solve and questions to answer :-)
[13:56] Mick Nerido: This SL reality is a new frontier also
[13:57] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that later Mick ^_^
[13:57] Mick Nerido: Thnx for a good lecture thanks
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] herman Bergson: I think that we 'll cool down a bit for the moment and move on to the next lecture on Tuesday dealing with mirror-neurons
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:58] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must go! see tuesday! thanks, all classes brains :-)
[13:58] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....
[13:58] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: interesting start ㋡
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: look forward for more
[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:58] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor, intrigueing as always
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[13:58] Alarice Beaumont: interesting subjects....
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:58] Alarice Beaumont: thanks a lot Herman :-)
[13:58] Alexia Rodeyn: thank you herman, very interesting
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: interesting ja
[13:58] Beertje (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman:)
[13:58] herman Bergson: thank you.....
[13:58] Mick Nerido: Thanks
[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: thank you herman.. smile..
[13:59] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): good bye everyone
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again ㋡
[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: is class again next tuesday Herman?
[13:59] Alexia Rodeyn: bye all
[13:59] Alarice Beaumont: bye Alexia
[13:59] herman Bergson: Sure Alarice....
[14:00] Alarice Beaumont: oh great
[14:00] Alarice Beaumont: hope to see you then
[14:00] Mick Nerido: Very interesting
[14:00] herman Bergson: I am glad you enjoyed it Mick
[14:00] Beertje (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight
[14:00] Mick Nerido: I'll be back again
[14:01] herman Bergson: Look who comes in on time...Rodney!!!!..Happy New Year ^_^
[14:01] herman Bergson: You are always welcome Mick
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: Happy New Year to you as well Herman

275: The ghost in the meat machine

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

270: The Design of the Mind

Our world is full of supernatural beliefs. Do you hold supernatural beliefs and can you answer the question WHY you do so? Just this morning in my newspaper… a short report about the Norwegian royal princess Märtha Louise. She is 38.

In an interview she had revealed that she could talk with the dead and talk with angels, which caused a storm of criticism. And the criticism is from my perspective really funny.

The protestant bishop, Laila Riksaanen Dahl told on the Norwegian TV that the dead are the exclusive business of God and that they should be left in peace.
QUOTE: " To change this, can unleash dark forces, which we do not know."

I live with superstition in my own life too. Look at this picture. This object I have in my left pocket… yes definitely the left pocket. Nothing else may be in that pocket, no coins, no keys..only this object.

It has three parts. That coin with a hole in it is a so called age coin, used for instance in discos to prevent too young people to get access to cigarette machines. I found it on the stairs of the entrance of the institute I worked. I found it on the last working day before my retirement. I recognized its symbolic meaning and kept it.

The little animal may be hard to recognize, but it is a small elephant. When my wife was born her parents really picked her first name from the newspaper. It was the name of a little elephant born in a Dutch zoo on the same day.

The other part is St. Christopher.Christopher has always been a widely popular saint, being especially revered by athletes, mariners, ferrymen, and travelers. So, I guess that he helps to keep me on the right track.

Quite a lot of nonsense beliefs, isn't it. (^_^) Ok, I plead guilty, but before you throw the first stone (seems to be popular again these days;-) look at your own life, where you may feel uncomfortable on Fryday the 13th, with a black cat or deeply guilty when you have committed a real sin in eyes of your God in your opinion.

As we saw in our former lecture, this can not be simply attributed to our education or our culture. Especially because among other things, this does hardly explain why we are so WILLING to cherish our supernatural beliefs.

This willingness is just in our mind, or to use Hood's words, we find the explanation in the design of our mind. "Design" means the organized way how our brain is equipped to understand and interpret the world.

Just like our other body parts have evolved during millions of years, in the same way has our brain gone through an evolution to help us survive.

Most scientists nowadays agree with the conclusion, that our brain is equipped with a set of specialized, internal mechanisms, which make it possible for us to process our experiences. In other words: we posses a mental toolbox.

This makes me think of the epistemological debate about the origin of knowledge and how we discuss ontology. Can we conclude that Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is the winner of the debate?

Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge.

Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions and empty concepts, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.

Then John Locke (1632 - 1704) is the looser. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.

It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able to be of some use to us.

Now we are so smart and impressed by the complexity of the brain, that we have great difficulty to believe that it has been different so many million years ago. The brain did not simply dropped from the sky, ready and fully operational.

It is the result of a long evolution and the designer of this brain is natural selection. And here the battle begins, when we enter the field of evolutionary psychology.

The application of evolutionary theory to the psychology and behavior of other animal species is generally uncontroversial. However, adaptationist approaches to human psychology are contentious, with critics questioning the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology, and with more minor debates within the field itself.

Evolutionary Psychology is grounded on the theory that fundamentally our psychology is based on biology, the composition of our brains. This is a form of reductionism, a research philosophy according to which the nature of complex things can be understood in terms of simpler or more fundamental things (i.e. reduced).

Now just read the following sentence: "The debates regarding the validity of evolutionary psychology have been regarded as occasionally quite vicious, with a strong ad hominem component."

I found this statement in an article in Wikipedia and it did not surprise me at all. When Darwin published his evolutionary theory, the world was literally in shock. Was there a connection between an ape and the human being??? Impossible!

The response was that cartoons showed Darwin as an ape. We are now entering a very sensitive area of the human discourse about ourselves. So let's keep our debates as objective and focused on the subject as possible, and let's avoid any ad hominem arguments.


The Discusion

[13:27] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^
[13:28] itsme Frederix: applause
[13:28] APPLAUSE: A Hearty round of applause bursts from the crowd
[13:28] Jozen Ocello: claps
[13:28] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:28] : Qwark Allen joins the applause.
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[13:28] herman Bergson: You surprise me..!
[13:28] itsme Frederix: some Quarcks are around
[13:29] herman Bergson: So nothing new in my words..you are all ok with it? :-)
[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: Great ^^
[13:29] Quizzle Mode beams
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: a mighty strength is required for most foslk to resist ad hominem argumentation
[13:30] itsme Frederix: Well if you persist?
[13:30] Qwark Allen: i believe that was a similar concept as natural selection that made the brain as it is
[13:30] Qwark Allen: the sexual selection
[13:30] itsme Frederix: I was triggered by this sentence "13:22] herman Bergson: It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able do be of some use to us."
[13:30] Qwark Allen: was the choice of thousands of years, of the female, that got us in this direction
[13:30] Qwark Allen: not the natural selection
[13:31] herman Bergson: Evolutionary psychology is fascinating.....especially the controversies…
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I would think with supernatural things it can only be ad hominem
[13:31] itsme Frederix: Which implies a separation between "us" and "brain" (and maybe body?)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: we utilize the brain or ... vice versa?
[13:32] herman Bergson: the problem with beliefs is that people are in love with their own beliefs...
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: that is my suspicion itsme
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: oh my yes
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: the former
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL yes indeed they are
[13:32] itsme Frederix: first Ari (and I think mine is a little besides the topic - et)
[13:32] herman Bergson: and when you critizise their beliefs you critisize their beloved ones......the ones they cuddle every day
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: Hood I believe is one of them
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hood is a horror to believers
[13:33] Quizzle Mode: We come very close here to asking the unanswerable question of how can we know anything outside our own thoughts? Does anything at all exist outside one's thoughts/perceptions.
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is an old one Quizzle...sollipsism...
[13:33] Qwark Allen: you got to read about darwin's nightmare with the peacock
[13:34] Quizzle Mode: yes, and one we really just have to live with ;)
[13:34] herman Bergson: But we leave the epistemological debate out here for the moment...and decline sollipsism as a tenable stand
[13:35] herman Bergson: just a pragmatic point of view..^_^
[13:35] herman Bergson: Wel I guess we can move on then....
[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Sollipsism is the stand, not the question Prof, and I totally agree that we must leave the question aside for practical purposes.
[13:36] herman Bergson: thank you Quizzle...
[13:36] itsme Frederix: So to summarize: supersense is natural and gives way for supernatural thoughts/behaviour - and its all because it made (and makes)sense to survive.
[13:36] herman Bergson: You could say that Itsme....
[13:37] itsme Frederix: Well that is my interpretation of your speech and Hood's book
[13:37] herman Bergson: If I look at my own personal superstition…it is just fun....and in a way emotionally not just fun....
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I just can not see any rationality much less empirical data to substantiate superstition except a feeling
[13:37] herman Bergson: yes Aristorle...
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the human brain has a keen and evolved ability to see patterns and connections...a common element in "supernatural" perceptions
[13:38] itsme Frederix: Herman, more then fun because these things co-relate with some good things in life, and you made the correlation
[13:38] Beertje Beaumont: is supersense just for humans?
[13:38] herman Bergson: But dont fall into the pittfal of binary tinking...
[13:38] herman Bergson: that we are either rational or emotional...
[13:38] herman Bergson: we are one....
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: it seems,like religion, added to the list of unprovable notions
[13:39] herman Bergson: every thought has a rational and emotional dimension...
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: I have a 'feeling' we are not one
[13:39] herman Bergson: if you only reduce our behavior to a permanent struggle to survive...
[13:39] herman Bergson: we need it all..the rational and the irrational, it seems
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: well, yes....if we approach it as us being two selves
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Arie, the point is that supersense is NOT unprovable but that it is a theory based on observations and fitting in evolutionairy thoughts
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: it becomes much clearer
[13:40] herman Bergson: and there is no clear border between rational and irrational...
[13:40] herman Bergson: that is just an idea generated by our brain
[13:40] herman Bergson: a handy tool to understand the world around us
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aa o
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:41] herman Bergson: ok..
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Herman, better to say a handy tool to .. handle and deal with the world
[13:42] itsme Frederix: .. and ourselves in that world
[13:42] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday we'll look into the specifics of the brain....how it works and what consequences this has
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok Itsem..agreed!
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your particiaption....
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: :) thank you Professor
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: was nice again Herman
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:43] Sartre Placebo: thx herman
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor
[13:43] Jozen Ocello: thanks
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: interesting topic as usual ㋡
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Professor
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: as always
[13:43] itsme Frederix: thx, and we will look into the specifics of the brain as we think it as and how we think it works. I guess the brain keeps that secret for us.!
[13:43] Quizzle Mode: Thank you Professor
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: hope I can make it on time tuesday i will be out of town
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: with the computer
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: so if internet works i will be here
[13:43] herman Bergson: Great you made is so early Rodney!
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: yes nice!
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: yes, why yes I did!
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you all!
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡