358: The Brain and back to the Identity Theory

What I tried in my previous lecture was to get hold of mental states by introducing introspection as a means to gain knowledge of our mental states.

The final result was that at the end of our discussion we had no idea what knowledge of our mental states we can obtain by introspection.

More important, there does not seem to be any part of the brain that functions as a monitor of those neurophysiological states that maintain and control conscious states.

There still is the belief that introspection gives us a special kind of knowledge about ourselves and our mental states and processes.

Then just hear this. In a normal population, Johansson and collaborators , a psychologist and researcher, manually displayed to participants pairs of pictures of women's faces.

On each trial, the participant was to point to the face he found more attractive. The picture of that face was then centered before the participant while the other face was hidden.

On some trials, participants were asked to explain the reasons for their choices while continuing to look at the selected face. On a few key trials, the experimenters used sleight-of-hand to present to the participant the face that was NOT selected as though it had been the face selected.

Strikingly, the switch was noticed only 28% of the time. What's more, when the change was not detected participants actually gave explanations for their choice that appealed to specific features of the unselected face that were not possessed by the selected face 13% of the time.

For example, one participant claimed to have chosen the face before him “because I love blondes” when in fact he had chosen a dark-haired face.

As you see, introspection is not really a reliable source of knowledge about our mental states. Yet, in their criticism of the identity theory, some philosophers still hold that introspection reveals something of the mind which neuroscience can not.

Thus, a number of authors have recently argued that a complete physical description of the universe inevitably leaves something out which introspection reveals, namely the qualitative nature of mental states.

There is something it is like to be a bat, for example, but any physical description of the bat’s brain, central nervous system, sensory equipment and so on, inevitably leaves this out.

This shows, it is argued, that a physical account of the bat is thus incomplete. Some have taken this to show that a proper account of the mind must inevitably appeal to something nonphysical.

I am still not inclined to agree with that idea and want to stick to the identity theory. Three principal types of identity theory have been proposed.

The first, associated with J.J.C. Smart (1920 - …), and sometimes called brain process materialism, is that sensations are identical with brain processes.

A second version, called central state materialism, and associated with David Armstrong (1926 - …), is that mental states are identical with states of the brain and central nervous system.

A third and more subtle version, offered by Herbert Feigl (1902 – 1988), is that certain neuro-physiological terms denote certain mental terms.

Following Frege's distinction (1848 - 1925) between sense and reference, Feigl argues that the terms differ in meaning, but their referents are the same.

This is similar to how the terms "morning star" and "evening star" both have different meanings, yet refer to the same object, namely venus.

So far, I stick to Feigl's approach. It is our language that creates our reality. And I think he has good arguments for his view.

Introspection….just take this statement: "I know that I am making a mistake…" The first "i" knows that the second "I" makes a mistake, while the second "I" believes he is doing fine….

It is a weird ability of the mind that it can double itself…. I am thinking about myself, who is thinking about a chess problem. The mind is fun…. ^_^


The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you...
13:21] Mick Nerido: That is the issue the brain is thinking about itself...
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes...that is why Auguste Comte said that introspection was nonsense…
[13:22] Clerisse Beeswing: the brain is a workaholic
[13:22] herman Bergson: that was 1830... ㋡
[13:22] Mick Nerido: Why nonsense?
[13:22] Binnie Fensen: How does dance fit into this model, then? As a choreographer, I work with the nonverbal.
[13:23] herman Bergson: The main point is since Descartes, that he believed that introspection showed infallible knowledge...
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well...lots of psychological experiments have already shown that that is not the case…
[13:24] herman Bergson: case
[13:24] Mick Nerido: It seem more like extremely personal knowledge, not objective reality
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:25] herman Bergson: and a lot can be explained by referring to memory
[13:25] Farv Hallison: I found lots of language fragments, many of which were wrong.
[13:26] Mick Nerido: Like intimacy is: into me see.
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well...introspection to get an insight in the working of the brain....not too reliable source of information..
[13:27] herman Bergson: For instance...they did an experiment..I'll save you the details...
[13:28] herman Bergson: the test persons had difficulty to solve the problem...an experimenter gave a marginal hint....
[13:28] herman Bergson: afterwards when asked...only a few mentioned the hint as the road to the solution
[13:28] Clerisse Beeswing: likw multiple choice
[13:28] Mick Nerido: Who said: We are what we think?
[13:29] herman Bergson: smile....
[13:29] herman Bergson: I know what I thing when I hear what I say, Mick ^_^
[13:29] herman Bergson: think
[13:29] Mick Nerido: lol
[13:30] herman Bergson: Ok then....
[13:30] herman Bergson: any questions or remarks left for today?
[13:30] herman Bergson: You are really gentle on me today ^_^
[13:31] Velvet (velvet.braham): what's the conclusion?
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: gosh you got me stomp
[13:31] Velvet (velvet.braham): that we leave stuff out when we remember?
[13:31] Velvet (velvet.braham): god knows I do :)
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: me too
[13:31] herman Bergson: the conclusion is that introspection is not a way to understand mental states
[13:31] Velvet (velvet.braham): that's logical
[13:32] herman Bergson: when we want to say that mental states are brain states, then introspection wont be of much help here
[13:32] Velvet (velvet.braham): but it's where we go first?
[13:32] Farv Hallison: not a way to probe brain states either.
[13:32] herman Bergson: We try to get hold of the mind....
[13:32] Clerisse Beeswing: my mind says find someone smarter
[13:33] Binnie Fensen: The mind constantly secretes thoughts. Impossible to get a hold of it.
[13:33] herman Bergson: We try to understand how a bunch of molecules of which we are composed, can give rise to what we call consciousness
[13:34] Velvet (velvet.braham): and now you've just dissolved the ground under me. thank you.
[13:34] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): welcome Lester
[13:34] Farv Hallison: consciousness is different from the mind.
[13:34] Binnie Fensen: Yes, what is the molecular structure of a thought?
[13:34] herman Bergson: nice question....Binnie
[13:35] Clerisse Beeswing: an idea
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can it be seen?
[13:35] Farv Hallison: there are folds and charged neutrons that can be coded to hold information.
[13:35] herman Bergson: It is the same structure as H2O molecules in a glass of water being liquid
[13:35] herman Bergson: what is the molecular structure of liquidity?
[13:36] Farv Hallison: water is an emergent property of water molecules.
[13:36] Clerisse Beeswing: space
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Farv…the emergence idea....we'll get to that certainly
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: Don't we have self criticism, isn't introspection a precondition for that? and doesn't it help?
[13:37] CONNIE Eichel whispers: afk
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well Lizzy...introspection is a pretty weird ability
[13:37] Mick Nerido: So everything going on in our heads is electro chemical and obeys the laws of physics
[13:38] herman Bergson: theoretically you could say that Mick, yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: but this doesn't say much....
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: to me that explanation is to easy Mick
[13:39] herman Bergson: you cant deduce consciousness from laws of physics
[13:39] Mick Nerido: It leaves out the old ides of "soul" or spirt
[13:39] herman Bergson: The big question is actually....
[13:40] herman Bergson: when everything just obeys the laws of physics…how can there be consciousness?
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: true
[13:40] herman Bergson: all molecules and atoms in the universe are lifeless matter!
[13:40] Farv Hallison: quantum physics leaves room for free will.
[13:40] Binnie Fensen: Do we even know all the laws of physics?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Farv...that is what Searle told in one of his lectures too..
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): or the opposite of free will
[13:41] Farv Hallison: we know them at the size scale of rocks and mountains.
[13:42] Mick Nerido: an innate quality of matter my be to be able to evolve from unconscious to conscious states
[13:42] herman Bergson: "Do we even know all the laws of physics?"....a tempting question
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: surely not
[13:42] herman Bergson: Just imagine what the question assumes...
[13:42] Binnie Fensen: Yes..
[13:42] herman Bergson: is there a finite or infinite set of laws of nature
[13:43] herman Bergson: How do we know how that set is composed...
[13:43] Farv Hallison: a few laws if you allow differential equations as laws.
[13:43] Binnie Fensen: We're looking for the laws of chaos...now that's an interesting combination of words.
[13:43] herman Bergson: I am no mathematician Farv ^_^
[13:44] Mick Nerido: We all spring from the atoms of this planet and yet we are conscious…
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Binnie interesting and paradoxical indeed
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: that prooves that there is more than atoms and molecules
[13:45] Farv Hallison: Gauge quantum field accounts for almost everything we can measure.
[13:45] Lester Buccaneer (lesterii): i must go, thanks for the lesson
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well, I think we have cracked our brains enough again for today...
[13:46] herman Bergson: So Lester....take a rest ^_^
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
[13:46] Velvet (velvet.braham): thank you, professor!
[13:46] Mick Nerido: Thanks herman!
13:46] Binnie Fensen: thank you
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you professor:)
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ^_^
[13:47] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor..great class
[13:47] Farv Hallison: Thank you professor Bergson.
[13:48] herman Bergson: Hey Rodney!!!
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a nice evening all:)

340: The marterialist Brain 6

Although Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) did not like to be called a behaviorist, he belongs to that group.

He insisted that in any acceptable analysis of a mental concept the description of a person’s state of mind must make reference only to publicly detectable features of the organism and its behavior.

His many subtle discussions of mental concepts are all attempts to identify the patterns of behavior whose display would constitute being in a given state of mind.

To attribute that state of mind to someone is to attribute a disposition to display the relevant pattern of behavior.

Thus mental states were dispositions to show specific patterns of behavior or these observable patterns of behavior themselves.

The mental statement "I am in love" does not mean that my inner self or a mind or a soul is in a special state, but it means that I have the disposition to show a certain pattern of behavior.

When you see this behavior, the first thing you would say then "Oh, he is in love". We'll get back to this behaviorist program in future lectures, but I can tell you already now, that it was an unsuccessful approach.

Just one obvious criticism: pains, sudden unsought recollections or dreams are definitely mental states, but they resist any plausible dispositional analysis.

The response to that criticism was formulated by a theory of mind known as central-state physicalism.

The central-state physicalists held that although it may be that some mental states can be understood dispositionally, there are many mental states, items, or events that must be accorded a straightforwardly status of their own.

These independent mental states turn out to be, as a matter of contingent fact, states of the central nervous system.

In 1931, Herbert Feigl married Maria Kaspar and emigrated with her to the United States, settling in Iowa to take up a position in the philosophy department at the University of Iowa.

In 1940, he accepted a position as professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota, where he remained for 31 years. He died in 1988.

I mention him so explicitly, because his famous essay The "Mental" and the "Physical" (1958) was the cornerstone in my thesis with which I graduated at my university in 1977.

I took the book from my bookshelf today, opened it and saw my diligent underlinings and scribbled notes in the margins of the pages.

And there are his classic empiricist words, where he describes his contemporary dualists:

-quote-
"And some very persuasive arguments point simply to the existence (occurrence) if immediate experience, i.e. the raw feels or hard data of the directly given.

They maintain that these data, though related to behavior and neurophysiological processes, are not reducible to, or definable in terms of, purely physical concepts;

and that their occurrence is not predictable or explainable on the basis of physical laws and physical descriptions only"
-end quote-

Just realize that in 1958 behaviorism was the flourishing theory for a materialist interpretation of the mind and a refutation of dualistic interpretations.

The neurobiological revolution still had to begin, which means that our perspective on the philosophy of mind is now supported by much more scientific data then in Feigl's time and in my time in 1977.

This is what makes this project so exciting for me, as I am entering new realms of scientific knowledge myself today, which have a profound influence on contemporary philosophy of mind.

Due to all this excitement it is really time to take some rest and time to study. Therefore the Summerbreak begins and my next lecture will be at the first of September.

Thank you all for your interest during this year again…. and enjoy the vacation.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney....:-)
[13:23] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[13:23] Rodney Handrick: hi Herman
[13:23] Carmela Sandalwood: what would Wittgenstein have said about PET scans?
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark..feel free..the floor is yours
[13:24] herman Bergson: We also can begin our vacation now of course ^_^
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i think you missed a question from Carmela
[13:25] herman Bergson: oh sorry....
[13:25] herman Bergson: That is difficult to say Carmela...
[13:26] herman Bergson: his approach was mainly based on conceptual analysis...
[13:26] herman Bergson: while our approach today is so much more influenced by detailed knowledge of the brain...
[13:26] Rodney Handrick: We're talking about Wittgenstein, right?
[13:27] herman Bergson: The one and only Rodney :-)
[13:27] Rodney Handrick: thanks
[13:27] Carmela Sandalwood: positrons weren't even known when Wittgenstein was active
[13:27] herman Bergson: no..not even the detailed structure of the brain as we know it now...
[13:28] herman Bergson: Philosophically we are in such a different landscape today....
[13:28] herman Bergson: Like they took dispositions to act as for real
[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: so what does our imprved knowledge say about the nature of mind?
[13:29] herman Bergson: while we now know that the awareness of such a disposition is there AFTER the brain already has set the proces in motion...
[13:29] Mick Nerido: That is still hard to believe
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...Carmela.at least, that we are our brian....
[13:30] herman Bergson: One of the goals of this project is to evaluate THAT statement...
[13:31] herman Bergson: Today , as a difference with 1977, in the philosophy of mind, philosophy and several sciences are closely interconnected...
[13:32] Paula Kayvon is Offline
[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: Dennett has some very good proposals about studying 'internal states of mind'
[13:33] herman Bergson: He IS on the menu Carmela :-)
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman, have a great vacation, see you in Sept.
[13:34] herman Bergson: Good idea Mick.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: Let's take it easy today ^_^
[13:34] herman Bergson: So...thank you all for your participation again :-)
[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: oh, OK
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..have a nice vacation
[13:35] herman Bergson: Unless you have a burning question left of course
[13:35] herman Bergson: If not.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Class dismmissed and a nice vacation to your all
[13:36] 방랑자 (tauto): thank you herman :)
[13:36] herman Bergson: You are welcome Tauto
[13:36] 방랑자 (tauto): and have a cool and fruitful vacation all of you
[13:37] 방랑자 (tauto): see you later beertje and Rodney and herman
[13:37] herman Bergson: ok Tauto…
[13:37] Rodney Handrick: ok bye
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): See you in september Tauto
[13:38] 방랑자 (tauto): ok Beertje :)

266: The Mystery of the Brain introduced

Welcome all. It is a great joy to see you all back again.I hope your vacation was as good as mine.

Here in front of me on my desk in RL I have a book. Its title is "A materialist Theory of Mind" (1968) by D.M. Armstronng. I bought is September 24 in 1976 and it cost me the fortune of almost US$20. And that was a fortune for a student in those days.

The flap text begins thus: " Professor Armstrong defends the view, currently much discussed by analytical philosophers, that mental states are purely physical states of the brain."

What already was on my bookshelves since July 1973 was "The 'Mental and the 'Physical' " (1958) by Herbert Feigl. I think it was my main inspiration philosophically.

This was basic reading for the subject of my thesis for graduation then in 1976. And here I am again with the same thesis. (….smiles….) Did I never get further in all these years. Didn't I get wiser? We'll see.

Much has changed since 1976, especially regarding our knowledge of the brain. The mind is no longer only a philosophical topic. Other sciences have entered the arena.

I don't mean just psychology, but especially neurobiology and neuroscience. Now we have men like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet. They have changed the philosophical scenery considerably.

For me this is going to be a special project. It is not just an academic presentation of a subject with many different points of view possible. It will be a personal stand. I will stand for a materialist theory of mind.

This means that the series of lectures I have scheduled will be a kind of argumentation to make my point. However, it is not my intention that at the end of the semester you all have to say: yes you are right.

The lectures and the research for them will be more of a test, a searching for the answer whether the materialist view is tenable or not, to clarify the arguments in favor and against this view.

To find out what happens, when you take a materialist interpretation of the mind as the most plausible one, which philosophical questions you then still have to face.

But my starting point will be the assumption that a materialist theory of the mind is our best choice to understand ourselves as conscious beings.

The subject with which I will begin this project is the concept of "Supersense" as explained by Bruce M. Hood in his book "Supersense: Why do we believe in the unbelievable" (2009)

We thus, to begin with, deal with the phenomenon of the supernatural in our existence and try to understand it. We'll investigate the balance between rationality and our irrational ideas.

The next stage will be a journey through the latest developments in neurosciences. I even allow begging the question by spending time on discussing the biological roots of our emotions.

After this materialist introduction we'll begin with investigating the history of the philosophy of mind. What questions and answers have been put forward regarding consciousness, the mind, the Self, personal identity since the early days of philosophy.

I guess our final station will become the question, whether this materialist starting point has helped us to find satisfactory answers to our philosophical questions or not.

This is not going to be an easy project. That I can promise you. Not easy for you and certainly not easy for me, but I hope that is will achieve its main goal: that it will be entertaining and especially educational for all of us.

Thank you.


The Discussion

[13:22] Adriana Jinn: whaooo
[13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully suspect this will be one helluva good time. :)
[13:22] Adriana Jinn: that is a program
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes I hope I wont let you down ...
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and do you have any references for us to read on the web???
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: a great adventure, this
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well ..for a start find Bruce Hood...
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: you have my mind clicking already, Herman
[13:23] herman Bergson: There is a lot of him, also on youtube...
[13:23] herman Bergson: Sounds good Aristotle ^_^
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:24] herman Bergson: You also can start looking around for neurobiology or neurosciences...
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMgaQ-lCkio
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:24] herman Bergson: English Wikipedia is ok for a start
[13:25] herman Bergson: It is gonna be a lot of work ^_^
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess
[13:25] herman Bergson: That is for sure
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: as usual
[13:26] herman Bergson: It seems that nobody has any questions about my chosen starting point?!
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: the origin of our selves have occupied a lot of my thinking
[13:27] Adriana Jinn: well very interesting but vast
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well...you might find something here then Aristotle
[13:27] Adriana Jinn: wide subject
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: if the brain is the seat of consciouness, where do you think its root resides in the physical brain?
[13:28] herman Bergson: The brain generates consciousness
[13:28] herman Bergson: no brain no consciousness :-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is why I speak of the mystery of the brain.....
[13:29] Jozen Ocello: and perhaps also generate subconsciousness?
[13:29] herman Bergson: and not the mystery of the mind or consciousness
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: but could it be similar to 'the computer in the hands of the human'?
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: without the computer no online
[13:30] herman Bergson: The computer is the human, Aristotle
[13:30] herman Bergson: The subconscious is a whole different story...
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a theoretical construct invented by the psychoanalytical school
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a concept of a higher theoretical level than I want to start from
[13:32] Jozen Ocello: i see
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: smiling, it is my suggestion that the mind needs the machine (brain) to communicate and direct the body only
[13:32] herman Bergson: the subconscious presupposes an extensive theory about what the mind is..
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: this will be a long discussion every week i think
[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle...this going to be a fight....^_^
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: the cart and the horse, which is in front? :)
[13:33] herman Bergson: The debate about dualism and monism....
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, I am excited :)
[13:33] herman Bergson: You sound dualistic in your statements :-)
[13:33] Jozen Ocello: this makes the class more interesting, I suppose :)
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:33] Adriana Jinn: yes exciting
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: unless we fall of track!
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, maybe even quadralistic LOL
[13:34] herman Bergson: You may give a lecture on that Aristotle ^_^
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I look forward to attaining more data
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, I may scare folks away
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well..the main development in philosophy of mind is, I think, that the materialist point of view is discussed more openly now and that more sciences are involved in that debate...
[13:36] herman Bergson: A big change...
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I think so, but I worry about sciences becoming religious in their posture
[13:37] itsme Frederix: skeptic magazine vol.15 2009 .. has an artivcle about Bruce
[13:37] herman Bergson: We will get to that debate Aristotle....
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[13:37] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see how we think about science....
[13:38] herman Bergson: especially related to our supersense
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it is hard to keep the subjective at bay
[13:38] herman Bergson: Is that article online Itsme?
[[13:39] herman Bergson: Phew....the kick off.....
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:40] herman Bergson: I will do my utmost to make this project work for you ( and me)
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: :) a bright step forward
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: very nice
[13:40] herman Bergson: So....thank you al for your attention and get ready for next Tuesday :-)
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: Tuesday we begin!!
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect very strongly you will not disappoint, Professor
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: good to be back
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: looking forward to it
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: ah is it on Tuesday from next week onwards?
[13:41] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: and see all the old students and the new ones
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: thank you professor
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: thanks Professor :)
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you, Prof
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: see you all next Tuesday
[13:41] Josiane Llewellyn: Thanks Professor
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:41] SonolaLuna Greymoon: :) danke professor
[13:41] herman Bergson: every Tuesday and Thursday at 1 PM SL time, Jozen
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: ah i see
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: thanks :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Thank you all...:-)
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: bye bye all and thanks again
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: ye Adriana
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: bye
[13:42] itsme Frederix: I'm already reading - see you nex week!
[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: bye Herman
[13:42] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje :-)
[13:42] herman Bergson: ok Itsme
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: good bye folks, and thanks again Herman
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: bye
[13:43] Jozen Ocello: bye everyone
[13:43] herman Bergson: my pleasure Aristotle ^_^
[13:43] Sartre Placebo: thx herman and bye everyone
[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: bye Bergie