skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In fact it is an amazing observation, that a religion, a system of beliefs, in this case christianity, has been able to block the development of science for so many centuries.The classic proof of this use of power is of course the case of Copernicus and Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642).Not only in science was religious thinking powerful. Also in philosophy it was able to keep materialism as an ontology outside for at least 1500 years.When the development of science couldn't be stopped anymore and Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) formulated a real materialist philosophy, Descartes (1595 - 1650) saved the day by introducing his Dualism.In those days you could be ACCUSED of atheism. But then the term "atheist" was frequently applied to people who believed in God, but not divine providence, or to people who believed in God but also maintained other beliefs which were inconsistent with such belief.Religion in this context is not the personal belief of an individual, but the system of cultural, social and political power of an organization.An organization that demands to believe in certain things and forbids to believe certain other things. It even had an Index, a list of books which, tho published, were forbidden for catholics.In line with this historical development it is not at all surprising that in recent years books like "The End of Faith" (2004) by Sam Harris or "The God Delusion" (2006) by Richard Dawkins were published.Today neuroscientists can stimulate certain parts of the brain, which gives people certain experiences, which can be describes as religious experiences. A subject I have elaborated on in my lectures 286 to 289.This all is a general development in Western Europe and in science in general. The triumphant progress in the twentieth century of a materialistic biology and biochemistry has almost completely eliminated vitalist notions of living forms as governed by forces additional to, and distinct from, the purely physical forces operatingon inanimate matter.The situation of earlier ages has been reversed; it now seems implausible to maintain that the vital functions of living organisms are different in kind from chemical (ultimately, physical) processes.In the realm of the mind, a new challenge for immaterialists has also developed. The rise of cybernetics (the abstract theory of machines) and its applications in computers threatens the idea of a special status for mental activity.In the 1920s and 1930s some logical positivists, led by Rudolph Carnap and Otto Neurath, espoused an epistemic materialism. They held that the meaning of any statement consists in the directly testable statements deducible from it.Inner states, however, can not be tested directly. Thence , testable physical statements should be deduced from inner states.With testable was meant statements that were suitable for intersubjective agreement. Therefor these logical positivist regarded statements about behavior suitable candidates as "translation" of inner states.This meant, that In this way the philosophy of language led to a behaviorist materialism and as such became an important development in the philosophy of mind with for instance, a philosopher like Gilbert Ryle with "The concept of Mind" (1949).Ryle asserted that the workings of the mind are not distinct from the actions of the body. They are one and the same. Mental vocabulary is, he insists, merely a different manner of describing action. He also claimed that the nature of a person's motives is defined by that person's dispositions to act in certain situations.This was one of the first modern attacks on cartesian dualism and the definite rise of materialism in philosophy and science.The Discussion [2011/06/28 14:16] druth Vlodovic: well, science, since it often promotes change, is really the purview of young or transitional societies[2011/06/28 14:16] Simargl Talaj: Nothing like a war to stimulate interest in technology.[2011/06/28 14:16] druth Vlodovic: wb professor[2011/06/28 14:16] druth Vlodovic: established societies will prefer changelessness because they like what they have[2011/06/28 14:16] Carmela Sandalwood: when it comes to a question of existence or non-existence, societies will often allow questions they wouldn't otherwise allow[2011/06/28 14:17] druth Vlodovic: in times of peace (or wars that don't actuallt threaten existence) then it is the other way around, questions become the greatest danger[2011/06/28 14:17] herman Bergson: I am sorry....dont seem to have any stabe viewer at all anymore[2011/06/28 14:18] druth Vlodovic: you should check your lag meter, see if it is server, connection, or your computer[2011/06/28 14:18] herman Bergson: I am glad I maned through this lecture and discussion[2011/06/28 14:19] herman Bergson: Druth..if I would tell you what I already had done.....[2011/06/28 14:19] Tauto: i wish i could stay more and listen but need to leave now.[2011/06/28 14:19] druth Vlodovic: lol, it was just a suggestion[2011/06/28 14:19] Tauto: thank you herman and Simargl, Camela, druth for good discussion.[2011/06/28 14:19] druth Vlodovic: please don't hit meeee![2011/06/28 14:19] Simargl Talaj: Herman would you be so kind as to give us the website once again that lists the books on neurobiology that pertain to this set of your lectures?[2011/06/28 14:19] herman Bergson: take care Tauto[2011/06/28 14:20] Carmela Sandalwood: take care tauto[2011/06/28 14:20] Carmela Sandalwood: care[2011/06/28 14:20] Carmela Sandalwood: I have to go soon also...need to get dinner going[2011/06/28 14:20] Tauto: thank you bye all~[2011/06/28 14:20] Tauto: :)[2011/06/28 14:20] herman Bergson: Byeeee!!! :-)[2011/06/28 14:20] Doodus Moose: byeeee!!!!![2011/06/28 14:20] Carmela Sandalwood: thank you very much for the class and discussion professor[2011/06/28 14:21] herman Bergson: My pleasure Carmela..you were great[2011/06/28 14:21] herman Bergson: interesting input....[2011/06/28 14:21] Carmela Sandalwood: well, I am in math and physics and have a great interest in computers[2011/06/28 14:21] Carmela Sandalwood: and am a materialist in the philosophical sense[2011/06/28 14:22] herman Bergson: And have knowledge of history![2011/06/28 14:22] Carmela Sandalwood: *smiles* I try to learn[2011/06/28 14:22] Carmela Sandalwood: it was a pleasure...so no more classes for a while?[2011/06/28 14:23] herman Bergson: only coming thursday...last class[2011/06/28 14:23] Carmela Sandalwood: ok...I will attempt to be there[2011/06/28 14:23] herman Bergson: you are welcome :-)[2011/06/28 14:24] Simargl Talaj: Thank you Herman.[2011/06/28 14:24] Doodus Moose: Professor - you're the best. we'll talk before September[2011/06/28 14:24] herman Bergson: ohh thank you Doodus...[2011/06/28 14:25] Doodus Moose: looks like you're cleaning up, Prof![2011/06/28 14:25] Doodus Moose: byeeeee!!!!!![2011/06/28 14:26] herman Bergson: more cosy :-)[2011/06/28 14:26] druth Vlodovic: :)[2011/06/28 14:26] druth Vlodovic: have you ever heard the idea of "emergent properties"?[2011/06/28 14:26] druth Vlodovic: it was last weeks topic at thothica[2011/06/28 14:26] herman Bergson: yes...[2011/06/28 14:27] herman Bergson: but it is a bit misleading idea...[2011/06/28 14:27] druth Vlodovic: my first reaction was that it is a last ditch attempt to recover magical thinking in science[2011/06/28 14:27] druth Vlodovic: misleading how?[2011/06/28 14:28] herman Bergson: exactly....it has a dualistic character[2011/06/28 14:28] herman Bergson: to emerge is an action which needs a force....[2011/06/28 14:28] herman Bergson: so...emerging properties are properties created by some force...[2011/06/28 14:28] herman Bergson: and that is bull ^_^[2011/06/28 14:29] druth Vlodovic: either from a smaller base or interaction with other factors[2011/06/28 14:29] druth Vlodovic: oh, by "some force"you meant an unknown one[2011/06/28 14:30] herman Bergson: It suggest that there is some mystic energy in matter that makes properties emerge...[2011/06/28 14:30] druth Vlodovic: yes[2011/06/28 14:30] herman Bergson: complete nonsense[2011/06/28 14:30] druth Vlodovic: they didn't like my arguments ;-?[2011/06/28 14:30] herman Bergson: lol[2011/06/28 14:31] herman Bergson: you have been too long in my class perhaps :-)[2011/06/28 14:31] druth Vlodovic: it is a good kludge I guess, you can work with larger scale without learning smaller scale[2011/06/28 14:31] druth Vlodovic: but as an idea I think it leads to a type of thinking that is potentially damaging[2011/06/28 14:31] druth Vlodovic: I wish I could get to more of them[2011/06/28 14:31] druth Vlodovic: my RL schedule is weird[2011/06/28 14:32] herman Bergson: doesn't matter...[2011/06/28 14:32] herman Bergson: when you are here..all is good :-)[2011/06/28 14:32] druth Vlodovic: :)[2011/06/28 14:32] druth Vlodovic: you'll turn my head, I swear![2011/06/28 14:32] herman Bergson: turn your head???[2011/06/28 14:33] herman Bergson: I'd love to keep it in place where it is![2011/06/28 14:34] druth Vlodovic: what are your big plans now your students have abandoned you?[2011/06/28 14:34] herman Bergson: They didn't abandon me..lol..they just went home or elsewhere ;-)[2011/06/28 14:35] herman Bergson: And I have no plans at all
Let Bruce Hood do the talking here, the writer of "Supersense: Why we believe in the Unbelievable" (2009).As you see, it is a recent publication. A more radical kind of other member in the choir is "The God Delusion" (2006) by Richard Dawkins.What is going on these days is a development on which I wrote my thesis in 1977. And in those days by some people it was almost regarded as blasphemy: a materialist theory of the mind.In the past 25 years there have been a revolution in technology and science, in our case, neurobiology.This has enabled us to answer a lot of questions about the mind, or should I say , the functioning of the brain.On my desk I have a brand new book, written by a world-famous Dutch neurobiologist, Dick Swaab. The title of the book is most telling: WE ARE OUR BRAIN, from womb to Alzheimer.This is a confirmation of my initial philosophical stand as a young graduate in 1977. A confirmation. Epistemologically it means , according to Popper, that it makes my point of view only more probable, no true.To be honest, after this initial series of lectures on our subject "The Mystery of the Brain", I don't mind. On the one hand in 2010 there is such a plethora of confirming evidence.On the other hand, although there are many books written on the subject, there is so no really hard evidence for all that our supersense is able to generate.When a law of nature is falsified by scientific experiments, it is because we have formulated a law of nature that explains our observations and predictions much better.In the field of the supernatural, we never succeeded in proving the existence of (a) god. The very thought of a proof is almost disqualified as blasphemy and regarded as superfluous by a lot of people, which is most remarkable of course.The scientific research on the results of astrological interpretation came up with apparently significant observations, but yet still highly questionable.But , sorry Bruce, I began by saying that you would do the talking. Go ahead, you have the floor ^_^"IN THIS BOOK, I have proposed that humans are compelled to understand the nature of the world around them as part of the way our brains try to make sense of our experiences. This process starts early in childhood, even before culture has begun to tell children what to think. Along the way, children come up with all manner of beliefs about the world, including those that would have to be supernatural if true. These ideas go beyond the natural laws that we currently understand and hence are supernatural. Whether it is a disembodied mind floating free of the body, a sublime essence that harbors the true identity of people, places, and things, or the idea that people are all connected by tangible energies and hidden patterns, these notions are all intuitive ways of thinking about the world. We persist in these beliefs despite the lack of compelling evidence that the phenomena we think are real do in fact exist. Culture may fuel these beliefs with fantasy and fiction, but they burn brightly in the first place because of our natural inclination to assume “something there,” as William James put it. Culture simply took these beliefs and gave them meaning and content."Thank you, Bruce……….In the concluding lecture, that is only concluding on the theme of Supersense, we'll have a close look at his argument for his point of view.The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...feel free...[13:22] Osiris Malso: ty Sir[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i missed part bruce who[13:24] herman Bergson: Bruce Hood is the writer I referred to[13:24] herman Bergson: UK fellow[13:24] Simargl Talaj: I must disagree that any evidence for astrology is statistically significant. Differences among people can be sufficiently explained by other factors that only coincidentally correspond to astrological sign. People whose parents have certain characteristics tend to be born in certain months rather than ohters, so we are really seeing a parent effect I believe.[13:25] Bejiita Imako: there now i've catched up ㋡[13:25] Simargl Talaj: oop forgot the 17 word thing. That will be hard for me.[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: he mentions a time before culture takes the supersense and molds it, when is that?[13:25] Simargl Talaj: sorry[13:25] herman Bergson: Plz read the rules behind me Simargl[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman I thought maybe Hood[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: i think when we are only infants to 5 or 6[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...culture kicks in in education at a later age....maybe when you are 4 or older...[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes about that[13:27] herman Bergson: Before that children already show supernatural beliefs[13:27] Osiris Malso: hehe Simargl dont you turn your bed to east?[13:27] Simargl Talaj: Margaret Meade noted that children in Melanesia had fewer supernatural beliefs than adults. It took culture a long time to ingrain them.[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: if one were to accept this philosophy, then we would tav to admit the babies are not receptive of life until 4?[13:27] herman Bergson: So the inclination to hold supernatural beliefs is hardwired in our brain it seems[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: babies are self centerd individuals[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: the center of their universe until about 2 1/2[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: supersense is so nonsensical to me[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: everyone and thing is there for them[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Simargl you are right...[13:29] herman Bergson: But the frame of mind is wired thus that we only increase those beliefs the older we get...[13:29] Simargl Talaj: Infants and children learn most deeply whatever is connected to their sense of survival even counter to later actual needs for survival. Thus the "supernatural" (not materially supported) beliefs/attitudes of abused children.[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....to that nonsensical feature of Supersense we'll get next Thursday...[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: good LOL[13:31] Simargl Talaj: :)[13:31] Bejiita Imako: then if u tell a small children about well everything they believe it cause they dont know anything other yet, have no other facts,[13:31] Bejiita Imako: for example that santa claus comes down the chimney at christmas eve and so[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I am confident tho that a child begins to absorb the world from day one[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...[13:31] Bejiita Imako: thats all they ve heard until they get more facts[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes ari they do[13:31] herman Bergson: with a basic mechanism…[13:31] Osiris Malso: yes i think so too[13:31] Bejiita Imako: also a thing[13:32] herman Bergson: To see structures and order in the plethora of sensory experiences[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: so if santa claus comes when they are 1 or 2 so what[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: but after 3 or 4 they believe[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: until they find out later[13:33] Bejiita Imako: I think i believed in that as well until i learned that hmm wait now i ve never seen or heard anyone come down the chimney or something like that[13:33] Osiris Malso: ok people bye se next time[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, parents think Santa Claus is a good thing for their children to believe in, he is not much different from religion[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes funny to see how we educate our children with fairy tales and then later tell them..sorry all not true[13:33] Osiris Malso: by Sir[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!![13:33] Bejiita Imako: bye Sir[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Osiris[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:34] Osiris Malso: byee[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and then u find out theat santa is really your grandmother or grandfather or something[13:34] herman Bergson: See you soon Osiris[13:34] Bejiita Imako: in santa chothes[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: but before that was supersense of belief in him[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and why always they go buy the newspaper just before he comes?[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I wonder if anyone ever thinks about the mistrust that these tales create[13:34] Bejiita Imako: when u start get that together[13:35] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....relogion takes over there :-)[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: or is that intended even?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: never the .less santa has a place at christmas eve I think[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yep[13:35] Bejiita Imako: adds to the correct setting[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: but again that is culture[13:35] Bejiita Imako: I use to be santa myself sometimes[13:35] Bejiita Imako: :[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I am guilty with my children of passing it on to them[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Bejiita ...I guess now you first need to see a doctor[13:36] Bejiita Imako: lol[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...next lecture we'll introduce rationality....[13:36] Bejiita Imako: Its really interesting this with supernatural believes[13:36] Bejiita Imako: same with ghosts and so[13:37] herman Bergson: as the opponent of supernatural beliefs...[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: great, I need some[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I ve never seen one but many claim they have[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I would like to be on the rationality team[13:37] Bejiita Imako: in old houses and so they really can hear strange stuff and so[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita....it will be a little diappointing I believe[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle..I think you should wait till next Thursday and then reconsider tour wish[13:38] Bejiita Imako: If they were kind i wouldnt have anything about it if they existed[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: okie dokie[13:38] Bejiita Imako: would be fun to really see one for once[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:39] Simargl Talaj: Herman, how would you like to focus the last few minutes here? I fear I have lost track of what is appropriate,[13:39] herman Bergson: Oh yes Bejiita....I'd really LOVE to see a real ghost...![13:39] Bejiita Imako: would be cool[13:39] herman Bergson: the intellectual and philosophical impact would be gigantic...[13:39] Simargl Talaj: (and religious)[13:39] herman Bergson: Same is even more true when there really landed a true alien on this planet[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:40] herman Bergson: that would kill God really, tho Nietzsche claimed that he is dead already[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: which is more possible , the alien or the ghost?[13:40] herman Bergson: I would say neither ogf both[13:40] Simargl Talaj: Why would it kill GOd? Religons allow for ghosts.[13:41] Simargl Talaj: a new religion would allow for both gods and ghosts.[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: wb Gemma[13:41] Bejiita Imako: wb gemma[13:41] herman Bergson: Sim..there is just one god ..one creation...one world....an alien would falsify that all[13:41] Simargl Talaj: and would have the advantage that half its theology was already demonstrated.[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: not necessarily[13:42] Simargl Talaj: ah, you meant aliens not ghosts. Again I disagree. Religon allows for aliens.[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it does[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I could start a religion that believes in hobgobblins too, doent make any of it ture[13:42] Simargl Talaj: Hinduism includes the existence of multiple inhabited planets and Catholic theologians have discussed soberly the spiritual condition of aliens if they exist.[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: no but i bet you would have a lot of followers[13:42] herman Bergson: I am sorry, but chrisianity hardly accepted that the earth rotated around the sun[13:42] Simargl Talaj: The doctrine of "that anonymous christian" pertained, I believe.[13:43] herman Bergson: so how can it admitt aliens?[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman it has[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: easily[13:43] Simargl Talaj: It has acepted the solar system for quite a while now.[13:43] herman Bergson: Explain Gemma...:-)[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: depends on how it affects the collection plate[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: because they would be creatures of the same god they believe in[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: it is my understanding that the vatican has issued some documents allowing for that[13:44] herman Bergson: but that would mean that mankind left earth long time ago in space travel...?[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: not[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: Stargate?[13:44] Simargl Talaj: Universalists would have no trouble with it, and there are Christain Universalists. Buddhists would have no trouble with it. Hindus would have no trouble with it. And the Bible does not say that Earth is the only planet on which God created life, so even Fundamentalist Christians would probabaly survive.[13:44] Simargl Talaj: damn passed the 17 again, sorry. I'm trying.[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: they could have developed just as we did[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: odds are against it I think but it is possible Gemma[13:45] herman Bergson: Well we wont waist our time on such theological discussions....[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802629.htm[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: but aliens and ghosts are just like supersense, ...figments[13:46] herman Bergson: Because basically it presuposes the supernatural belief in a god...[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle..most likely[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: but I will gladly embrace them all if proven to me[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: we all wil if they are proven :-)[13:47] herman Bergson: OH me too...I am still waiting for ET...[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, such a nice guy he was[13:47] herman Bergson: yes...[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: if they do exist they are too far away anyway[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: need time travel[13:47] Bejiita Imako: If my LHC could prove something like that to me as well, but Ill have to satisfy if they find the higgs there i guess[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...it seems so[13:48] Bejiita Imako: would be nice to know for sure[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:48] Bejiita Imako: are ghosts real are there something out there or not[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: just need another Jules Vern[13:48] Bejiita Imako: really curious[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:48] Simargl Talaj: What is our intended topic at this point? The supernatural beliefs of children, and the extent to which they arise independent of culture?[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: or Roddenb erry[13:48] Bejiita Imako: of all the musterious unknown things[13:48] Bejiita Imako: but i want proof before I bellieve it[13:49] herman Bergson: Well..I think we can conclude our session for today....[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:49] herman Bergson: The issue is clear...we all wait for ET ^_^[13:49] Bejiita Imako: Interesting as usual[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie gave me the beginning[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aa me too,[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-))[13:50] herman Bergson: Or for a real ghost...which is of couse paradoxicall because ghosts aren't real
"All human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas." ; That is what Immanuel Kant says in his "Critique of Pure Reason "(1781). I think, that this is a example of a perfect understanding of the mind. And this in 1781, when there didn't exist any knowledge of the brain or neurobiology. Even Kant already understood that the brain had a life of its own.In the former lecture I concluded that we can distinguish three belief-systems: Science, Religion and the profane supernatural. As Kant says, they begin with intuitions.They end up with ideas, but are these ideas ideas about the world around us in the sense that we may call it knowledge? In fact, the only belief-system that leads to knowledge about reality is science. And science is based on logic and rationality.However, this conviction has lead to the belief, that science is the safest way to deal with the world around us. Just look what we have achieved in technology, physics or in medicines and healthcare.From an evolutionary point of view this may be right, so what to do with the supernatural part of our thinking. In 2006 Richard Dawkins had an outspoken opinion about it in his book "The God Delusion".-QUOTE-"I decry supernaturalism in all its forms, and the most effective way to proceed will be to concentrate on the form most likely familiar to my readers—the form that impinges most threateningly on all our societies. . . . I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."-END QUOTE-But does this attack make sense or is it fighting windmills like our well known Don Quichotte did? I think it is fighting windmills due to the design of our mind.Supernatural beliefs may emerge spontaneously in children as they develop as a natural by-product of their mind design. These beliefs do not need to come from culture.For a great part religious beliefs come from education. Children are easy to believe what others tell them, but on the other hand our brain is strongly inclined to accept these beliefs too.A good example of such a the belief is creationism. From childhood on our basic intuition about the world is, that it is organized as it is in dead matter, living creatures, plants , insects, animals, humans….As a child you have no other experience than that the world was there, is there and tomorrow will there be too. Because the mind is inclined to supernatural beliefs, it is quite willing to believe that this was created just like that at some given moment.Our minds are naturally inclined to a creationist view. After all, creationism was created by the human mind, whereas evolution by natural selection is a fact that was discovered.How can the complexity of design emerge without a designer? That is what our mind can not grasp, because experience tells us that for instance building a car is a very complex process which starts with a designer and a design.A second thing is that our mind is not able to understand is the possibility of an evolution taking millions of years. In our short live the best we can experience is the birth of a baby and witness its development, which means it just grows up…Nothing new emerges. All was there from the beginning…head hands, toes and so on.So evolution theory is contrary to our intuitions. The fact that we are genetically equal for 98% with a chimpanzee and even for 50% with a banana, we still have trouble to believe for us that all life in all its diversity came from the same basic matter.Let alone, that we easily can believe that all this diversity and complexity emerged in a rather random process of evolution over a period of million years. Our intuition is that developments must have a goal, isn't it?Despite all efforts, we must conclude that it is not feasible to try to ban all kinds of supernatural thinking, including religion. It is in our genes.To quote Bruce Hood: "The geneticist Dean Hamer has even identified a gene, vesicular monoamine transporter 2, or VMAT2, that is linked to the personality traits of spirituality. He found that in a survey of over two hundred people including twins, those who share religiosity also share VMAT2. This gene controls a number of the brain chemicals responsible for controlling moods. Neuroscientists such as Andrew Newberg have even made progress toward identifying the relevant neural circuitry that is activated during religious experiences, again suggesting a brain-based account for the spiritual.So maybe our brains and our own unique mind design determine whether we believe or not."And did you ever realize that Second Life has supernatural traits. Ever seen two avatars hug? And you there at the keyboard, what do you see and feel? Just pixels moving on a screen or do you experience more?The Discussion[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:26] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark..plz feel free[13:26] Bejiita Imao: ah[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: did you see that Stephen Hawkings has a new book out that explains that the universe could come without a creator??[13:27] herman Bergson: and it was a woman who smiled....^_^[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he is not saying that there is not one[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Hawkins is a problem...[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he is just saying that there is proof that there is a possibililty that it was not necessary[13:27] Adriana Jinn: don't you think that intuition is totally apart[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes...a bit weird argument...[13:28] herman Bergson: one thing...[13:28] herman Bergson: it is chaos among cosmologists…any theory goes...[13:28] herman Bergson: that string theory is just nothing..[13:28] herman Bergson: here we see the same thing as in understanding evolution...[13:29] herman Bergson: our brain cant understand it....[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: very true[13:29] herman Bergson: just simple example...[13:29] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes hard to grasp[13:29] herman Bergson: they talk about a big bang....[13:29] herman Bergson: inmy opinion..complete bull[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hmm im not sure about it either[13:30] Bejiita Imako: I hope the LHC will shed some light on it[13:30] herman Bergson: for that big bang had to take place WHERE???[13:30] herman Bergson: In Space???[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: well yes[13:30] Qwark Allen: between two universes[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: where else[13:30] herman Bergson: But then we get into an infinite regress...[13:30] Qwark Allen: the colisions of two of them[13:30] Bejiita Imako: i mean how can a explosion occur from nothing[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess we have to read hawkings book[13:30] herman Bergson: Exactly...[13:30] Adriana Jinn: yes[13:30] Qwark Allen: it was massive impact[13:30] Bejiita Imako: what caused that explosion[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: that is what he will try to tell you[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i think[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: not sure about the big bang theory[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: Neuro-biologists like Andrew Newberg reduce "spiritual thought" to brain function. . . . Do they consider there might be a substrate to brain physiology?[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: is in there[13:31] herman Bergson: They arent all happy with Hawkins stand Gemma...not at all...[13:32] herman Bergson: it is just a theory..where he puts his money on...[13:32] herman Bergson: Ok Back to Bruce and our focus of today..[13:33] herman Bergson: Is brain acivity an other word for mind...?[13:33] herman Bergson: We will dig into that question when we go into th emore philosophical discourses...[13:33] herman Bergson: for now yes..[13:34] Qwark Allen: there could be brain activity, and no mind on it[13:34] herman Bergson: brain activity = the mind...[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ah true[13:34] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:34] herman Bergson: no brain activity = no mind presnt[13:34] Adriana Jinn: yes[13:34] Qwark Allen: brain activity it`s a cinequanon for mind, but not allways[13:35] herman Bergson: But this has serious consequences for religious ideas for instance..[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: "no brain activity = no mind present" can neither be proved nor disproved.[13:35] herman Bergson: sine qua non[13:35] herman Bergson: yes[13:36] Adriana Jinn: when you are in a coma what happens ?[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...here we come in the philosophical battle field...[13:37] Qwark Allen: depends on the cause, and on type of coma[13:37] herman Bergson: For now I stay out of that debate and act as a pure materialist...[13:37] herman Bergson: Well coma Adriana ..there are various kinds..[13:37] herman Bergson: there is a brain condition where the person still is aware of his environment..[13:38] herman Bergson: we dont knw exactly what the coma is..[13:38] Adriana Jinn: but the mind is not present ?[13:38] herman Bergson: yes the mind is present...[13:38] Bejiita Imako: then you wouldn't be aware if your surroundings[13:38] herman Bergson: there are cases of people recovering from a coma...[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yesz[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: perfectly well[13:38] herman Bergson: who had heard all discussions at the bed by doctors and others[13:39] Qwark Allen: in the guineess, there are a person that recovered from the coma 50 years after[13:39] Adriana Jinn: i would think that the brain is there but not the mind[13:39] herman Bergson: the brain is a very complex machine...[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: i think the mind is there just impaired at the time[13:39] Qwark Allen: got in come while was a child[13:39] Adriana Jinn: yes sure[13:39] Qwark Allen: coma*[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: unable to work through the brain[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Suppose I have a "reverence" for the Big Bang and the evolutionary process. . . . (I am a Pantheist.) --- Is that not also a "religious experience" even though there is nothing super-natural about it?[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: to the body[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: reverence --- not reference. sorry.[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that was one form of religion yes bruce[13:40] herman Bergson: the mind is just the activity of braincells like movement of th eare is just acrivity of muscles[13:40] herman Bergson: of the arm[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: So, my neurons are firing like those of a Christian fundamentalist -- but the object of my "worship" is Nature. . .[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: oh my i hope not[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: the cf i mean[13:41] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...as I mentioned in the lecture...it might depend on your genes..:-)[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: It seems to me that reduction through neuro-biology is very similar to CF --[13:42] Adriana Jinn: yes[13:42] herman Bergson: To put it in an extreme way...[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: We now pronounce brain chemistry, etc. as THE WAY IT IS.[13:42] herman Bergson: your genes and brain determine whter you are a spiritual person or not[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: That's a perfect example of what I am driving at.[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: well could be any fundalmentalist then not just christian ..... jewish .... muslim.....hindu......[13:43] Qwark Allen: i think the socio-cultural surrouding there, have a big importance[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: not to mention all the others[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Pre-destination to Calvin is now "determinism" via brain physiology.[13:43] herman Bergson: Well..there are two things...[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:43] herman Bergson: not too fast here plz....[13:44] herman Bergson: one thing..yes Bruce ..we have to face the debate on determinism...[13:44] herman Bergson: and second....[13:44] Bruce Mowbray wonders when neuro-plasticity will be mentioned.[13:44] herman Bergson: tho the mind has an inclination to belief in supernatural things...[13:45] herman Bergson: on the one hand it differs from person to person[13:45] herman Bergson: and second..it differs form culture to culture where a person is born..[13:45] herman Bergson: so the nature / nurture balance differs from situation to situation[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: So. . . . it's either cultural determinism or neurological determinism....? Is individual choice to change one's brain also determined?[13:46] herman Bergson: when I am an illiterate afgan is quite different forma European academic...in relation to the use of supersense[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: If I chose to meditated -- and bring forth in my brain the results of meditation -- is that choice determined?[13:47] herman Bergson: Bruce..I promise you...you get a whole series of lectures onthat for you especially ^_^[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: fine -- but meanwhile I will operate on the assumption (and the experience) that I am free to bring forth changes in the functioning of my brain.[13:48] herman Bergson: Because you hit the bulls eye yes...[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: let us know how that works[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: neuro-plasticity.[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles...[13:49] Bejiita Imao: ㋡[13:49] herman Bergson: neuro gymnastics[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: changes in the physiology of the brain -- brought about by my personal choice.[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: we all do that[13:49] Qwark Allen: yep[13:49] herman Bergson: Oh Bruce...[13:49] Bejiita Imako: can be possible at least in part i think[13:49] Qwark Allen: more or less[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: A simple phrase: "What fires together, wires together...."[13:49] herman Bergson: You really are walking on the wild side now...^_^[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Wild? Folks have been meditating for thousands of years....[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: it will be interesting[13:50] herman Bergson: Great!!!!![13:50] Bruce Mowbray: in order to change their brain function.[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Now we see it through our instruments.[13:50] Qwark Allen: just not, if you have a stroke, or any brain illness[13:50] herman Bergson: You just point at what is ahead of us Bruce...![13:50] Bruce Mowbray: ok.[13:50] Bruce Mowbray sits on hands.[13:50] Qwark Allen: some are genetic[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles[13:50] herman Bergson: thnx Bruce lol[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)[13:50] Bejiita Imao: ㋡[13:50] Qwark Allen: it`s your genes, that made possible you have that choice bruce[13:51] herman Bergson: Well this is a terrific discussion...[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting[13:51] herman Bergson: It shows what we still have to face...![13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:51] Bejiita Imako: really ㋡[13:51] Qwark Allen: ;-)))[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: thursday more[13:52] Adriana Jinn: for true[13:52] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \O/ \O/ \O/[13:52] Qwark Allen: | | |[13:52] Qwark Allen: / \ / \ / \[13:52] herman Bergson: For the time being I will stick to my materialist approach...[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:52] herman Bergson: So thank you all..this was great ..thnx Bruce inparticualr[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: yw[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ssee you all thursday[13:52] Bejiita Imako: yay¨[13:52] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`[13:52] Qwark Allen: yw[13:52] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)[13:53] herman Bergson: We still have a long way to go...[[13:53] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you everyone.[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes[13:53] Bejiita Imako: awesome[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: yw[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed[13:53] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman!! ty class :-))[13:53] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman and thanks all
Yesterday I was watching this picture viewer with a friend. It contains pictures I make of my Sl experiences with friends. At a certain moment the picture of Bergie showed up and the very second, that her picture appeared I received an IM…. yes from Bergie.Isn't that odd ??!!! Do you recognize the experience? You are thinking of somebody and at that same moment the phone rings…..at the other end the person you were just thinking about.We have great difficulty to believe that this is just coincidence… The psychologist Carl Jung even invented a word for this phenomenon (1920/1951): synchronicity.Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are apparently causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history—social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual.Here we are at the heart of our stand: when we read something like this… about synchronicity, we see the supersense at work. In other words, this is a supernatural concept, or to refrase that, it is scientific nonsense.Why do people believe in things that defy the laws of nature? This cannot be pure ignorance. No….because many people say that they have proof for it. Just remember what I told you about my personal experience yesterday.And yet there is nothing supernatural at work here. Such events we call coincidences, even tho we have trouble to accept that. Probably is our brain not properly equipped to deal with coincidences and is it inclined to see supernatural forces at work here.This makes me think of the words by Bertrand Russell in his book "The problems of Philosophy" (1912):"Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life."Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers..Maybe this is one of the reasons that our daily life is loaded with all kind of supernatural considerations. Small ones like "this can not be a coincidence!", while there is no causal relation between events. And big ones: all kinds of religious and esoteric beliefs.The American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842 -1919) already noticed that a lot of people not only believe in the reality of existence but also in what is behind it or transcends it.Something untangle, that is not directly observed by our senses. This 'more' eludes natural explanations. It is supernatural. In fact it is the basis of all religious beliefs.Why are we so wiling to think in that way? A first explanation is that we are educated to think that way. Isn't it funny that we are first told that Santa really exists and when we get older they call you nuts if you still believe that.But we have a point here… We were not born believing in astrology. We have learnt to believe in it. But that doesn't answer the question why we are so WILLING to participate in rituals and ceremonies.An answer to that could be: there is something in it for us: by believing supernatural things we can participate in society. Beliefs unite people.But if culture is the sole source of supernatural beliefs,then we have to stop telling our children all that supernatural nonsense and educate them with scientific thinking.Or like Richard Dawkins writes in "the God Delusion" (2006): "If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination."There is another explanation for our WILLINGNESS to believe in the supernatural. Even if the main source would be only culture we are still left with the question WHERE emerged the first supernatural beliefs???And an other anthropological observation is that many (isolated) cultures cherish all kinds of supernatural ideas and beliefs."Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 as an example of a sentence with correct grammar (logical form) but semantics that are nonsensical.It shows that the grammatical structure is nor enough to communicate ideas. Ideas have to fit into an existing context to be understood. For a lot of people scientific ideas and explanations are hard to understand.On the other hand supernatural explanations and ideas are way more easier to accept, it seems. Like the grammatical correctness of a sentence is not enough to give it a meaning, so is culture and education not enough to explain the meaning of the supernatural.For that explanation we have to look at the design of our mind, which we will do next Thursday. Thank you.The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..plz geo ahead[13:23] herman Bergson: Well I guess all was clear then ^_^[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm interesting concept for sure this[13:23] Beertje Beaumont: i'm not that fast in reading english..[13:23] Repose Lionheart: everyone is looking at your pictures I would guess, Prof ㋡[13:23] Repose Lionheart: hehe[13:24] herman Bergson: lol...you could be right Repose..[13:24] Bejiita Imako: what you said in the beginning have also happened to me many times[13:24] Quizzle Mode: Are these beliefs a way that people seek meaning in (or to) life? Is it that humans have a need to "make sense of the world"? and we fall to superstition when science doesn't or can't answer.[13:24] Jozen Ocello: i like what you said about "Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers"[13:24] herman Bergson: Oh YES Quizzle....[13:25] herman Bergson: Absolutely...[13:25] herman Bergson: We cant live with the unexplained...[13:25] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes that can be a possibility too i guess[13:25] herman Bergson: just look how we think about death,....[13:25] Mickorod Renard: maybe we are victims of being a spiecies of crative minds[13:25] Quizzle Mode: Recent studies in the US have shown students tend to be less religious as they learn more science and this is worrying some envangelical students, already some states teach intelligent design as science alongside biology and evolution.[13:26] Repose Lionheart: hmmmm...is the world absurd then...throwing up a creature from its heart that so needs meaning, yet there being none inherent in that world?[13:26] herman Bergson: we have difficulty to live with the idea that death simple means..it is over..[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Quizzle..I know...I'll get to creationism soon[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Repose....[13:27] Quizzle Mode: Repose, that comes back to the seach for what is meaning surely? if you cannot prove there is no meaning then surely you cannot argue from that position?[13:27] herman Bergson: a fundamental question....[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: Does philosophy attempt to "answer" science? -- for example, the quantum physics idea of "non-locality" -- which WOULD explain "synchronicity" through science.[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/?view=usa&ci=9780195144086[13:27] herman Bergson: No Bruce....[13:27] Repose Lionheart: Was just asking a question, me ㋡[13:27] herman Bergson: philosophy asks questions....[13:28] herman Bergson: And as Russell says...[13:28] herman Bergson: as soon as we have a real answer the question moves to the realm of science[13:28] Quizzle Mode: In ancient times many philosophers where scientists, maybe philosophy is more a branch of science than humanities?[13:29] itsme Frederix: which is like metaphycis as another word for philosophy[13:29] herman Bergson: I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...[13:29] herman Bergson: The philosophical question comes first....then comes science...the body of knowledge[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Ritual and religious behaviour seems to date back over a million years (to seeming ritual cannibalism among homo erectus as determined by bone studies)…whatever religion and supernatural belief are, their roots are deep and they must fulfill a very deep need in us[13:30] herman Bergson: But what Quizzle said is more important...[13:30] Quizzle Mode: isn't metaphysics a branch of philosophy in the way that algeba is a branch of math?[13:30] itsme Frederix: I disagree strong Herman, science is just not all - or maybe all based on logistics but Wittgenstein "posphoned" an other sight[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes REpose.....[13:31] herman Bergson: I know Itsme....[13:31] herman Bergson: But it is not our subject at the moment...[13:31] itsme Frederix: in his opinion, science and logistics is more like a tautology[13:31] herman Bergson: What we try to understand is where supernatural beliefs come from[13:31] itsme Frederix: which makes sense[13:32] itsme Frederix: as son as you know its (more or less) obvious[13:32] herman Bergson: and Quizzle pointed at our need to give meaning to life...[13:32] Repose Lionheart: 300 year of reasoned scientific thought is a light turned on upon our world...but it may take a good while to deeply affect the evolved habits of mind of our species[13:32] Quizzle Mode nods in agreesment with Repose[13:32] itsme Frederix: Herman I agree its not our subject but it was so who stated this doubtfull vision[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...and that is where people like Dawkins come in...[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Agree, Prof[13:33] herman Bergson: In the God delusion he pleads for a world without religion....which menas a world without supernatural thinking...[13:33] herman Bergson: Just imagine ...[13:34] herman Bergson: when we are deprived of our supernatural ideas.....[13:34] herman Bergson: and you relate that to giving meaning to life...[13:34] herman Bergson: Philosophically an interesting situation[13:34] herman Bergson: You could end up in existentialism as an answer for instance[13:35] itsme Frederix: thats fast thinking ...[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Or maybe rethinking God? a logical, moral God of Kant?[13:35] herman Bergson: problem is Quizzle....that God belongs to the supernatural thinking...[13:36] Quizzle Mode: surely there are arguments on both sides to prove and disprove God?[13:36] herman Bergson: A lot of philosophers have tried to "proof " the existence of god....with no success[13:37] itsme Frederix: I guess its more exact to say that the God idea is for some people a supernatural idea, like thunder is/was - and many ideas/intuition in childhood[13:37] Quizzle Mode: We cannot argue from a point of no God (or otherwise) if we cannot prove he/it does not exist?[13:37] Bejiita Imako: there is some thing i reward before about i think was called Intelligent Design, that we are so advanced that something MUST have created it , cant possibly be created by itself like that[13:37] Jozen Ocello: that's an interesting way to see it, Quizzle :)[13:37] Bejiita Imako: a modern god theory[13:38] herman Bergson: Intelligent Design is also supernatural thinking...[13:38] Quizzle Mode: (btw I do not believe in a God, but philosophy is not about arguing beliefs yes?)[13:38] itsme Frederix: A lot of guys has tried to prove the non existense of God, how can you prove non-existence hats idiot[13:38] herman Bergson: To prove the non existence is nonsense , in my opinion ^_^[13:38] herman Bergson: But to proof the existence....[13:38] herman Bergson: we have no scientific method what soever...[13:39] herman Bergson: what are we investigating...[13:39] herman Bergson: of what substance is ggod made...[13:39] herman Bergson: and if he is not a substance in the natural way....[13:39] Bejiita Imako: like a ghost or something[13:39] herman Bergson: how do we happen to have knowledge about this non material substance???[13:40] itsme Frederix: well ,we have knowledge about non-euclidian spaces[13:40] herman Bergson: what method or sense did you use to obtain true knowledge about this non material substance?[13:40] Repose Lionheart: The very word "God" is so nebulous it is unarguable without so precisely defining the term that the discussion becomes unproductive because of its specificity[13:41] herman Bergson: True Repose[13:41] itsme Frederix: Thats interesting - true knowledge as distinction from knowledge![13:41] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:41] herman Bergson: dont play with the words Itsme^_^[13:41] Jozen Ocello: i agree Repose... that is probably why when one says he/she believes in Santa, people will say s/he is crazy, but when one says he/she doesn't believe in God...[13:41] itsme Frederix: retoric Herman[13:42] Repose Lionheart: hehehe[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yep[13:43] itsme Frederix: serious, true knowledge might be science, and supernatural knowledge might exist also - well it look like existing in the brain[13:43] herman Bergson: I dont agree Itsme...[13:43] herman Bergson: I should have said..as I meant...certain knowledge....[13:44] herman Bergson: true knowledge is a pleonasm....[13:44] itsme Frederix: why did you use true knowledge then?[13:44] herman Bergson: I apologize for my sloppy way of expressing myself ^_^[13:44] itsme Frederix: np, I accept[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh, not heard of a pleonasm...google here I come ㋡[13:45] Jozen Ocello: me too .. let me know when you find it Repose :)[13:45] itsme Frederix: green grass, white snow[13:45] herman Bergson: It means that you add an adjective to a noun that already implies the quality..[13:46] Jozen Ocello: aaahhhh[13:46] herman Bergson: for instance the expression black raven...[13:46] Repose Lionheart: pleonasm is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, clichéd, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of idiom[13:46] herman Bergson: a raven is always black...so you are saying too much...[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof ㋡[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yep[13:47] herman Bergson: Anyway....[13:47] herman Bergson: Our discussion shows that we may expect interesting questions for the future...[13:47] herman Bergson: touching very sensitive issues...[13:48] herman Bergson: So...thank you for your participation today....[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡[13:48] Jozen Ocello: thanks Prof and thanks everyone for the discussion :)[13:48] herman Bergson: We'll discuss the Design of the Mind next Thursday...[13:48] Jozen Ocello: look forward to that[13:48] itsme Frederix: Herman, could you make a small addendum - the definition of knowledge as you take it?[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes¨[13:49] herman Bergson: in this project knowledge might be regarded to mean scientific knowledge , Itsme[13:50] herman Bergson: I have no intention to begin a discussion on epistemological issues now :-)[13:50] itsme Frederix: oke thx, that tells me the playground[13:50] herman Bergson: good..^_^[13:50] itsme Frederix: and most certainly I will (try to) respect your borders for knowledge[13:51] itsme Frederix: thx and bye bye[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this becomes more and more interesting[13:51] herman Bergson: the epistemological issues have been discussed in detail in former projects..[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] herman Bergson: So in this project you have supernatural beliefs against scientific knowledge..[13:52] herman Bergson: where knowledge can be regarded as formulated in falsifiable hypotheses[13:53] herman Bergson: ok...[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx again...class dismissed ^_^[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehehe...hae to get to my rl school now ㋡[13:53] Repose Lionheart: afternoon for me[13:53] Repose Lionheart: see ya[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor :)
