381: The Brain, determinism and Free Will

In The Critique of Pure Reason (first published in 1781), the German philosopher Immanuel Kant maintained that causation was one of the fundamental concepts that rendered the empirical world comprehensible to humans.

By the beginning of the twenty-first century, psychology was beginning to show just how pervasive human reasoning concerning cause and effect is.

Even young children seem to naturally organize their knowledge of the world according to relations of cause and effect.

Causal determinism states that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature.

Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe.

If the laws of nature were determinate, then such an entity would be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.

Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment.

These interpretations of determinism leave little room for a free will. On the other hand, suppose your free will means your ability to choose A over B…just like that.

No reason for the choice…just out of the blue you choose A, because you are driven by free will. Somehow that doesn't feel good. You think, you need a motivation for your choice.

But was it free will then, or a choice determined by motives. And where do those motives come from? Aren't they caused by other thoughts or experiences?

Somehow we must find some explanation, that allows causation and on the other hand can not causally explain, why we chose A over B, which could mean that determinism is compatible with free will.

We could argue that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals' wills are the result of their own desires and are not overridden by some external force.

So, what is free will. Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679), claimed that a person acts on their own only when the person wanted to do the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to.

You also can speak of free will as positive liberty, defined as having the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential (this may include freedom from internal constraints), as opposed to negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint.

But you also could argue that there are cases where a coerced individual's choices are still free because such coercion coincides with the individual's personal intentions and desires.

David Hume (1711 - 1776) discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue.

He suggested that it might be accounted for by "a false sensation or seeming experience" which is associated with many of our actions when we perform them. On reflection, we realize that they were necessary and determined all along.

It seems that we don't need brain scans and neuroscientific evidence to come to the conclusion, that the idea of free will is a verbal issue.

Just think about the meaning of the word "free" in relation to willing. Free from what? We can not act without a reason or a cause. And if we can not find one, Freud has taught us that there are many subconscious reasons too.

So, free will, is it really that interesting? Did Hobbes define the idea of free here the best? We act and we take responsibility for our actions, that is how the system works.


The Discussion

[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:24] Jaelle Faerye: Thank you Herman
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Well yes, thats a clear statement of the dilemma
[13:25] herman Bergson: it is up to your free will to react or have a question ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: YES MERLIN....
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:25] Mick Nerido: If i were to throw dice to determine a choice that would be free will?
[13:25] herman Bergson: The more I studied the subject the less I got interested in that concept of "free"
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Even dice are not truly random
[13:26] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:26] Jaelle Faerye: "free" is the keyword
[13:26] herman Bergson: Mick, there was a reason to use dice
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Jaelle...
[13:26] herman Bergson: and to be honest..don't know what to do with it
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: haaa
[13:27] Mick Nerido: to eliminate my choice leaving it purely to chance
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: haven't you aver done that, Mick?
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: throw dice
[13:27] herman Bergson: you wouldnt accept that Mick
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: or flip a coin
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: I suspect that part of the problem is the idea of an unchangeable" core self"
[13:27] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have sometimes tossed a coin
[13:27] Jaelle Faerye: and find out you want the OTHER solution
[13:27] Mick Nerido: i threw a dart at a map to choose a vacation destination
[13:27] herman Bergson: all actions that are rationalisations of a situation
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:28] Mick Nerido: vacation
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah'
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: and the dice or coin can help us see what we don't want
[13:28] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I'm very interested in divination actually.
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: lol "asking for advice just means you know what you want to do and don't like it."
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: just clarify the choice as unacceptable
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:28] Jaelle Faerye: maybe
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Druth ^_^
[13:29] herman Bergson: let me put it this way....
[13:29] Jaelle Faerye: or maybe you respect someone's insight and you want to get another way of thinking around your issue
[13:29] herman Bergson: we behave...choose al the time...90% subconsciously even....
[13:29] herman Bergson: but in conscious choices........
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think there is the ability to veto our choice...
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is reacting on a trigger free will?...even if the reaction is very bad and you never have chosen if you had the choise?
[13:31] herman Bergson: like the golf player swings his club an d in a split second says "No, not the good swing" and misses the ball
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: but why would you want to play a bad swing
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ?
[13:31] herman Bergson: we are conditioned to a high level in behavior Beertje..yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: No Bekiita....
[13:32] herman Bergson: in the movement of the swing he feels it isnt the right one
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: i want to hit the ball as good as i call all times sometimes very good otherwise it go not as good but i always try to go for the best shot possible
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): so reacting on a trigger is free will?...did I understood that right?
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: if you practice something oftenly it belongs to subconsciousness
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if you can train your trigger then it can be
[13:33] herman Bergson: no Beertje..that is conditioned behavior...
[13:33] herman Bergson: What is the meaning of all advertising???To deprive us of our free will
[[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: depends
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bu tin the store..at the very moment we buy the producct ..in a split second...we can say NO
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: i use to say that some of it can be good to inform us about a good product and then it also SHOULD be good
[13:34] Mick Nerido: advertising tries to sell us something not deprive us of free will
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: depends what you call advertising
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: however they don't have to show coca cola commercials evenry now and then for example
[13:34] Jaelle Faerye: a billboard a sign
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: i already KNOW its a good product that taste good
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: something can INFORM you
[13:35] herman Bergson: no no...I understand....
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: it seeks to condition our responses, if you try to maintain consciousness of your decisions then the effect tends to be more limited
[13:35] Jaelle Faerye: that there is a grocery here, for instance
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not every product that taste good is good for your health
[13:35] herman Bergson: we are not deprived of our free will , we are just influenced....biased eventually
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: advertising is not = information
[13:36] Jaelle Faerye: okay
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hmm thats one thing indeed for example i don't drink a 2 litre bottle now and then but some people do and thats way too much sugar
[13:36] herman Bergson: no Lizzy…advertising is trying to control our will
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: nods
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: its tasty but should not drink too much
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: it's not coercion, though it is an attempt at conditioning
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: should
[13:36] herman Bergson: and in such situations...I think...
[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): they try us to believe that we can't live without the product
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:36] herman Bergson: if you want to know what free will means is our ability to say NO at any given moment
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: like apple and their ipads and iphones
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: if we are looking for free will, we have to find the gap between the different causes, that will work
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Advertisers would take away our free will if they could
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: or better, if there is such a gap, in which we can act free
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: dont like apple at all esp not after i read about the workers in china commiting suicide
[13:37] Mick Nerido: thats right just say no.
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: made me really sad
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: and their damn lock in policies
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Was that because they could not get the new phone?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it's your free will to NOT bye the stuff bejiita
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: tried to get an ipod working for a friend but the damn software that they require itunes didnt want to work at all,
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: with other things u plug it in the usb transfer your stuff no prob
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: thats how it should be
[13:39] herman Bergson: At this moment I am inclined to say that free will is not defined by the freedom of wanting something, but by our ability to say NO...in any situation
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why so angry about that stuff Bejiita?..you don't have to buy that
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: you'd have to want to say "no" at some level
[13:39] Mick Nerido: I freely choose to be at Philosophy class lol
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Mick...you could say NO at any moment and not come
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: if you see through the advertisement you can decide against the product
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: when it comes to stuff like that I am more for open solutions and luckily there are such ones too
[13:40] Mick Nerido: but there are many unconscious reasons I don'y
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes thats an important thing , to see through commercials and similar things
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Mick, but yet....
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i wiped my husband out free will from this chair behind the comp to be here in this class
[13:41] herman Bergson: at this moment ...
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: i always think twice
[13:41] herman Bergson: if you want a definition of free will...
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: please
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I would say..our ability free from any coercion to say NO
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: the more knowledge you have the easier you can decide
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: but i like to test new things and if they are good i stick with it if they are bad i look for something else
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: i disagree Lizzy
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: to find just the things i want
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: the more knowledge you have, the more options you see
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: the more difficult is the choice
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:43] herman Bergson: but youstill can say NO
[13:43] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): true Herman..everybody can say NO
[13:43] herman Bergson: whatever options you have...
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: u can laways do that indeed
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: what now, yes or no?
[13:44] herman Bergson: well..if determinism means that all our actions are caused ...then free willmeans...NO
[13:44] herman Bergson: which means...we ignore the causes and just say..I dont do it
[13:44] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:44] herman Bergson: for the rst we are ok by that fact that our actions are caused....
[13:45] herman Bergson: we go to the supermarket and buy the product that was advertized on tv...we don't care...but we could have said NO
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes at least partially depending on what it is to do at moment
[[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: but this no is caused on knowledge too
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: because we have the knowledge about how advertisement is made
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: it need not to be free will
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: if i work are at home for ex, choose actions depending from what my current action is
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...you could say that the NO is cause d by other inner causes....
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: the difficulty is to get to a point where our different knowledges and so on are in standoff situation
[13:47] Mick Nerido: thats why i use chance when i am not sure
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: but I don't know how to manage
[13:47] herman Bergson: for instance, because you hate to follow TV commercials by buying the products
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): one has to feel good by saying NO..otherwise it's not a good choice
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Beertje....
[13:48] herman Bergson: the NO is a personal victory :-)
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: or "yes"
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: depending if u like it or not
[13:48] herman Bergson: OK Druth..now and then you may say YES
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is it all about personal victory..the free will I mean?
[13:49] druth Vlodovic: the secret I think is to be deliberate in making yourself into the sort of person you want to be, so your choices will follow
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: i think for example that this is interesting so therefore im here at the moment
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: and also have many friends here thats another thing to it
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: stuff like that
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] Mick Nerido: when a girl says no does she mean yes?
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: if everbody sais NO you can say NO to the NO, what means Yes
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: uh oh
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: makes me say yes to this
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): nó Mick
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: u mean that they play hard to get when they like you or?
[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): she means no..
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: if your choice is just to pull against the mainstream then it's not really a choice,
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: Simple and correct logic Lizzy...
[13:50] herman Bergson: when they all say NO you may say YES
[13:50] herman Bergson: which is equivalent to NO NO ㋡
[13:51] druth Vlodovic: for it to be a real choice it has to be carefully considered along a number of dimensions
[13:52] herman Bergson: You know.....
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: even if the final decision is what everyone else chose as well it is still worth it to go through the process of deeply considering it first
[13:52] herman Bergson: I hardly have an idea what free will is....
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: its interesting subject for sure
[13:53] herman Bergson: I know that all behavior has causes....conscious and subconscious....
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: and tricky indeed
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: is there someone who has an idea, Herman?
[13:53] Mick Nerido: it's something like liberty...
[13:54] herman Bergson: So when I can do what I do and nobody is keeping me from doing it...I guess I am using my free will in a deterministic context
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: and what is liberty, .. a feeling only?!
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: id say many of my choises are based on what i do at moment but then i have based in that a group of actions i can take and choose between as i like
[13:54] herman Bergson: and that can define responsability....
[13:55] herman Bergson: I can try to kill some one....everybody would stop me...because of our moral rituals
[13:55] Mick Nerido: liberty means free to choose.
[13:55] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes things i know is wrong i cant make myself to choose on
[[13:55] Bejiita Imako: then its a no
e[13:56] herman Bergson: it is up to your own free will tho think about how fre you are to want things...
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: I remember the tactics i used on my kids to take away their choices without them knowing
[13:56] herman Bergson: I guess I have tortured your brains enough now...
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: "do you want a shower or a bath" only sounds like a choice... :)
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: same if i hold a very expensive vase, even if i could drop it free will i cant make myself to do it, or any other thing i dont want to break
[13:56] herman Bergson: So thank you all...
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman
[13:57] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..
[[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU Herman
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: tnx
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: really nice and interesting once again
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): very interesting Herman
[13:58] herman Bergson: Never knew that a free will could be so problematic ㋡
[13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Anyone interested in psychology might be interested in a programme on Schizophrenia on BBC this morning.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7
[13:58] herman Bergson: Ahh....
[13:58] herman Bergson: thnx Merlin!
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): YW Herman. I was thinking I should tell people at the time I heard it.
[13:59] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Still available on the web
[13:59] herman Bergson: Good idea Merlin!
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all

349: The Monist Mind

The belief that what really exists is mental may sound somewhat preposterous today, but yet this conviction has played an important role in philosophy, especially in German philosophy from Kant to Heidegger.

You find the problem in the cartesian doubt. You can doubt everything, even the reality of the world, but you can not doubt the existence of the mind.

So, the step to the conclusion that the mind eventually is the only entity of which you are absolutely sure that it is real, is close at hand.

Another philosophical line of thinking is: all we really have are sensory impressions. They may be caused by external things or may be hallucinations, at the end all we really have are sensory impressions in our mind.

Kant went a step further and concluded that there is something missing here. How can we recognize a sensory impression as being an object in space and time, for instance?

What we call reality, is in fact created. organized, by our mind.Thence what is really real, is mental. This quality positioned the human being above the material world.

When we think reflectively of mental phenomena we find that we acknowledge them to possess two sets of properties:

one set which invites us to distinguish the mental realm from the physical, the other which firmly locates the mental within the physical world.

Among the first set of properties are subjectivity, infallible first-person knowledge, consciousness, meaning, rationality, freedom and self-awareness.

These properties are not to be found in the world of mere matter, and so lead us to suppose the mind to be set apart from the physical body: we seem compelled to accord a special mode of reality to mental phenomena.

However, because of the development of science we accept a few basic truths today, for instance, that the brain, itself a physical organ of the body, is intimately related to mental activity, its integrity and functioning necessary to the integrity and functioning of the mind;

that mental phenomena seem to emerge, both in evolution and individual development, from a basis of matter organized in physically explicable ways.

These considerations incline us to regard the mind as somehow physical in nature, since it is natural to suppose that only what is itself physical could be so enmeshed in the physical world.

The brain and the mind seem to work in parallel: The brain is the physical understructure of the mind. That fact suggests a strategy for investigation.

We should be able to find out things about the brain by seeing how the mind works. We should be able to find out things about the mind by seeing how the brain works.

The clearest and most uncompromising version of monism is the thesis that mental phenomena are literally identical with physical phenomena:

if a person has a sensation or a thought and a neurophysiologist is examining the relevant portions of his brain, then the mental state is nothing other than the physical state thus observed.

Moreover, whenever a mental state of that type occurs in a creature's mind there is the same type of physical state in the brain, these being identical.

The model for such type identities is said to be provided by such theoretical identifications as that of water with H2O or heat with molecular motion:

just as we may be presented with one and the same phenomenon in two different ways and subsequently discover the identity, so-- it has been claimed--we may be presented in two different ways with a mental phenomenon, physically and mentally.

Don't think that this is the final story. Far from that, but it was my thesis in 1977 at my graduation from university: The Identity Theory ㋡


The Discussion

[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours, if you like.... ㋡
[13:28] herman Bergson: hears everybody think......
[13:28] Pirie Takacs: lol
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: timeout ..giggles
[13:28] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark...feel free...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Simply stated this identity theory says....
[13:29] herman Bergson: some words have different meanings, but the same referent...
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: its a new point of view... two different states of being.. connected.. but it remains a biochemical pc
[13:30] herman Bergson: this means ..'water' has another meaning than 'H2O'
[13:30] herman Bergson: but both terms refer to the same reality
[13:30] Pirie Takacs: I'm very much a novice, so please excuse me if this sounds naive... But how does this explain consciousness, which seems to me to be a leap above the mechanics of the brain?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Good question Pirie....
[13:31] herman Bergson: actually ...the BIG question....
[13:31] Mick Nerido: So in the brain when i see the color red the chemical process is the same for every brain.
[13:31] Clint Pheocene: it doesn't...i suspect that the question of consciousness will be answered not by philosophers or neuroscientists, but by physicists
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: well i guess everyone sees red as the same color unless colorblind
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: d
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Clint ...that may be a possible development....
[13:32] Clint Pheocene: everyone as in humans or everyone as in humans/dolphins/aliens?
[13:32] herman Bergson: But we have to face a problem here...
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but animals interpret it different as they see at least some speices different parts of the spectra
[13:33] Clint Pheocene: it is highly unlikely for an alien to see redness when it sees an apple
[13:33] herman Bergson: also when there would be a physical explanation of consciousness
[13:33] Mick Nerido: stimulate the same part of everyones brain to get same sensation
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....
[13:34] herman Bergson: When I think of the Eifeltower and you do the same...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: if a physician explains consciousness, he will never get the point of it.. may be the mechanics
[13:34] herman Bergson: are there in our brains identical processes going on?
[13:34] Mick Nerido: That is my question
[13:35] herman Bergson: There is one problem here why they can not be identical...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I can say that this is MY experience , like you can say the same....
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: our computers are not yet perfect , will they have a conciousness in future?
[13:35] herman Bergson: subjectivity of experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: if there are similar processes.. it need not mean that the mind's processes are similar
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: to those of the brain
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I think
[13:36] herman Bergson: You cant say that Sybyle when you accept a monist view like the identity theory
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: please explain
[13:37] herman Bergson: ANd computers won't get consciousness, Lizzy, but we'll get to that an other time ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: talking about the mind and talking about the brain is a kind of speaking two different languages, but all words refer to that one and only material reality
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:39] herman Bergson: But believe me we aren't even halfway...
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the analogy with a computer i can get is that if the brain is the hardware the mind is sort of the operating system or software that runs on it
[13:39] Mick Nerido: The brain is the material the mind is the process of that brain
[13:39] herman Bergson: We still have to face a lot of arguments pro and contra
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: thats the closest analogy i can think of
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: but spicy pasta tastes same physically to all, but the mind has a different taste in every case
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so there must not be similarity
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: excuse my english.. I mean need
[13:40] herman Bergson: Taste is a difficult issue.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: especially because it is highly subjective.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: if subjectiveness is a property of my mental states.....who to deal with that property?
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: but isn't that the mind's work?
[13:42] herman Bergson: only your mind's work sybyle...
[13:42] Pirie Takacs nods.. I know what is spicy to my brain, after its accumulation of data, isn't the same as those of my Indian friend...*giggles, and fans her mouth, indicating 'spicy'=hot!
[13:42] Mick Nerido: The philosical question is why is matter mind at all?
[13:42] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:43] herman Bergson: We look at the astonishing fact that we live in a completely material universe
[13:43] herman Bergson: Every atom is as dead as a duck..
[13:43] Clint Pheocene: yes what advantage do qualitative states provide to the functioning of the mechanical brain?
[13:43] herman Bergson: And yet..here we are conscious...
[13:44] herman Bergson: That is a big discussion Clint, yes...
[13:44] Mick Nerido: yet life comes from inanimate matter
[13:44] herman Bergson: I am still working on that issue....because I don't like the qualia turn at all :-)
[13:44] Clint Pheocene: life can be explained in terms of inanimate matter but not consciousness....for example, philosophical zombies are perfectly explained by todays physics
[13:45] herman Bergson: oh my...the zombie thought experiment...
[13:45] herman Bergson: I am still trying to figure out how to deal with that stidetrack, Clint ㋡
[13:45] herman Bergson: This project is a matter of work in progress ^_^
[13:46] Clint Pheocene: absolutely...we have a long way to go
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes , but it is fascinating...
[13:47] Mick Nerido: What does it all mean, Herman?
[13:47] herman Bergson: when they can replace braincells by a chip which participates in the brian processes....where does it lead to...
[13:47] herman Bergson: What do you mean Mick ...with 'all'
[13:48] Pirie Takacs thinks...but, the fact that a body can live, and it's made up of inanimate atoms - maybe we are looking at atoms the wrong way? Maybe we don't yet know all the PARTS that make us up?
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Is the universe meaningful in you view?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Pirie that could be pretty well the case
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: there is a story about the dna
[13:48] herman Bergson: No Mick...the universe has no meaning or purpose at all
[13:49] herman Bergson: it is just there as far as I can understand
[13:49] Mick Nerido: But there is no proof..
[13:49] herman Bergson: Proof of what?
[13:50] Mick Nerido: So we can still speculate...
[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles...
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes we can Mick...
[13:50] herman Bergson: And Sybyle...
[13:50] herman Bergson: there is one interesting observation....
[13:51] herman Bergson: evolution has configured molecules in all kinds of ways...
[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: sure
[13:51] herman Bergson: and in such a way now and then so that there was created a completely new feature...
[13:51] herman Bergson: like molecules got organized in DNA strings....
[13:52] herman Bergson: or in such a way that consciousness emerged
[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: the scientists tried to decode the dna.. and thought, they could be able to understand when decoded
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes maybe we are looking in the wrong direction to understand the relation between brain and consciousness
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: but when done, they have to recognize there are more levels more structures to decode
[13:53] Mick Nerido: Consciousness could be a side effect
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: nice..isn't it?
[13:53] herman Bergson: There is at least so much understanding of DNA that we can maipulate genes and change living organisms
[13:54] Pirie Takacs believes that all animals have a consciousness, albeit some not as sophisticated as others
[13:54] Clint Pheocene: do shrimp have consciousness?
[13:54] herman Bergson: That would lead to a discussion on the definition of consciousness Pirie
[13:54] Pirie Takacs: Maybe we should look at why we should have consciousness at all?
[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: i think that consciousness is equal and not a sideeffect
[13:55] Pirie Takacs: I'n beginning to think it's a necessity for survival.
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: but if we hadn't how could we then act and react with our surroundings and do anything
[13:55] Clint Pheocene: plants survive without it
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:55] herman Bergson: That is what I mean by definition Pirie...
[13:56] Clint Pheocene: bejita, we could react just like any computer today
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: even an ant must have some sort of conciousness to be able t do hmm well what ants do
[13:56] herman Bergson: when you define consciousness as a mechanism which enables the organism to interact with its environment effectively you are right
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aha
[13:56] herman Bergson: but consciousness is more....
[13:56] Pirie Takacs nods... There are many parts to the definition, I think :)
[13:57] herman Bergson: most important feature is self-awareness for instance
[13:57] herman Bergson: if you make that part of the definition , most organisms do not have consciousness
[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Hm,. But if we have no self-awareness, how can we have consciousness at all? We must be able to separate ourselves from others and other things in our environment - thus we label them, and gather info about them
[13:58] herman Bergson: they have an awareness of their environment...sure
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aha
[13:59] herman Bergson: There you use self-awareness as one of the defining features of consciousness Pirie
[13:59] Mick Nerido: A computer can not be self aware?
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: Yes. Atm, I believe I would include that...*isn't 100% sure though
[14:00] herman Bergson: no....
[14:00] herman Bergson: But that will be for a next lecture Mick....
[14:00] Mick Nerido: perhaps it could be programed in...
[14:00] Clint Pheocene: then it would only behave as if it were self aware
[14:00] herman Bergson: I don't think it was easy today ..but a very good discussion, I would say :-)
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: a computer is sort of millions of lamp switches in miniature connected together and do everything by binary math but simply switch from on to off and back on
[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again..
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and a lamp switch cant be conscious what i know
[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman and all
[14:01] Sybyle Perdide: you were great Herman.as always
[14:01] Mick Nerido: Wonderful class thanks
[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed after Bejiita has finished ^_^
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: hehe now this was interesting
[14:01] Clint Pheocene: thanks everyone
[14:01] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman, it was great today
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gt more and more great
[14:02] herman Bergson: thank you...
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: / \
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: now u gave me a lot to think about
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[14:02] Pirie Takacs: Are there any books/authors/philosophers we could read about this, Herman?
[14:02] Clint Pheocene: when is the next cl;ass?
[14:02] herman Bergson: Tuesday, Clint
[14:02] herman Bergson: same time same place
[14:02] Clint Pheocene: great
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:03] herman Bergson: There are tons of books Pirie...
[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone
[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Ciska ㋡
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: bye all
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again
[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: bye cis
[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: By e Bej
[14:04] herman Bergson: I have a whole library of PDF files on the subject....
[14:04] herman Bergson: hundreds of titles
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: try David Chalmers and perhaps Daniel Dennett? I havent read their works yet
[14:04] herman Bergson: That is heavy stuff Clint...
[14:04] herman Bergson: Chalmers and Dennett don't agree with eachother
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: yes that was my intention
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: i agree with Chalmers
[14:05] herman Bergson: I still don't know how to evaluate the different points of view of these two...
[14:05] Clint Pheocene: from what i can read of their wikipedia page that is lol
[14:05] herman Bergson: interesting
[14:05] Pirie Takacs: Oh, I don't need them to agree - it may be better if they don't. I get more opinions then...*grins
[14:05] herman Bergson: oh I have better places to go for you...
[14:05] herman Bergson: got a minute?
[14:06] herman Bergson: Then I'll fetch a few URLs for you
[14:06] herman Bergson: Really top of the bill academic material
[14:06] Pirie Takacs: Ok...*eyes light up.
[14:06] herman Bergson: http://plato.stanford.edu/
[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.iep.utm.edu/
[14:07] herman Bergson: these two are internet classics
[14:07] Pirie Takacs: Thank you...*adds them to her list of Favourites
[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html
[14:08] herman Bergson: Stanford and IEP are the best and most scientific
[14:08] Pirie Takacs: I used to have access to university libraries, but now I don't, as I'm not studying at the moment...*sighs sadly
[14:09] Clint Pheocene: well there are lots of pdf versions of books on consciousness you can donwload...
[14:09] herman Bergson: Indeed Clint!
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: alright see you next class everyone…byw
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: *bye
[14:11] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)
[14:11] herman Bergson: Bye Clint
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: LOL then im me ill send you a few links
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: bye clint
[14:11] herman Bergson: thnx for your participation
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: Bye Pirie
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: thanks professor...bye
[14:12] Lizzy Pleides: just waiting for Sybyle
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: I am here
[14:13] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy, Sybyle
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Pirie
[14:13] Lizzy Pleides: good bye Herman!
[14:13] Pirie Takacs: Bye, sybyle :)

348: The Idealist Mind

Typical for the philosophy of mind is, that its theory is contrary to our common sense believes. Most people assume some kind of dualism. Life has a mental part and a physical part.

Yet, despite this common sense psychology, dualism is widely rejected as a plausible theory to explain consciousness or the mind. Of course there still are one or two philosophers who still stick to dualism. We'll come to that later.

The dualist view is not a typical product of Western philosophy. A lot of Asian philosophies use the dualist vocabulary like most of our discussions are still about body and mind.

Although we are locked in in the dualistic vocabulary, we have to look for plausible alternatives for dualism.

Descartes claimed that there were two substances. A weaker claim is that there are not two different substances, mind and matter,but at least two different properties, mental and physical properties.

The later, however, still keeps a lot of the problems, which we had with substance dualism. So, what is the alternative? The answer is 'monism'.

There do not exist two, but only ONE ('monos' -greek) substance in our universe. Thus, somehow we have to explain the existence of the mind from that one substance.

The next step in the philosophy of mind was to say: ok, then we pick one of the two. Our universe, as we know it, is either made of mental stuff or of material stuff. The Cartesian way of thinking.

In this choice you see maybe the oldest controversy in the theory of knowledge, epistemology: is what we really know constituted by the ratio, the mind or by the senses?

So one group of philosophers chose for the idea that eventually everything you experience, what you call reality, is mental. This is called idealism.

Metaphysical idealism is an ontology that holds that reality itself is essentially spirit or consciousness or, at least, that abstractions and laws are more basic to reality than the things we perceive.

Epistemological idealism is the view that reality can only be known through ideas, that only psychological experience can be apprehended by the mind.

Notable modern western idealist philosophical movements include; early idealists such as George Berkeley and Gottfried Leibniz, the late 18th-19th century German idealists, including Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and Arthur Schopenhauer.

and mid 19th-early 20th century British idealism, a species of absolute idealism whose leading figures were T.H. Green, F. H. Bradley and Bernard Bosanquet, succeeded by J. M. E. McTaggart, H. H. Joachim, J. H. Muirhead and G. R. G. Mure.

The 20th century British scientist Sir James Jeans wrote that "the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine". A typical example of idealist metaphysics.

This philosophical assumption, that the MIND is really the place to be for us, has deep roots. Plato's theory of forms is already one of the first examples.

Immanuel Kant, of course, with his transcendental idealism is a textbook example. Only because the mind contains these a prior categories, like causality, extension, space and time, we can perceive a reality.

"… if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of representation." — Critique of Pure Reason A383. This quote illustrates this kind of metaphysical and epistemological thinking perfectly.

When mentioning Kant, you can believe that this Idealism has been very influential, especially in the 19th century.

However, at this moment idealism has no real philosophical significance anymore due to the immense developments in science, which makes it preposterous to suggest that reality is all spiritual.

Or to finish with a one-liner: Is it the mind that shapes what we call reality or is it reality, that shapes the mind?


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you... ㋡
[13:24] herman Bergson: I can understand that I have left you speachles now...:-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: But if you have a question or so..plz feel free :-)
[13:25] Qwark Allen: ehhehe indeed
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: there is these example with a dream of a butterfly..it sound similar
[13:26] herman Bergson: you mean that butterfly that causes a hurricane on the other side of the earth?
[13:26] Sybyle Perdide: no
[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: maybe the bug from kafka?
[13:26] Sybyle Perdide: am I a woman dreaming to be a butterly, or a butterfly dreaming to be a woman rembering to eb a butterfly
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: I never found the solution
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: continuity seems to be the best indicator
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is a typical example, Sybyle
[13:28] herman Bergson: of what this option for the mental leads to...
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): So, idealism is an antiquated philosophy.
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): effectively disproved
[13:28] herman Bergson: In my opinion , yes Velvet....
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): or am I oversimplifying?
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: lots pf people in sl like to believe it, but it can be hard to explore the idea with them
[13:29] Velvet (velvet.braham): I think you're right, druth!
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well today I picked some books from my bookshelves...
[13:29] herman Bergson: the ones which I read when I was 18...
[13:29] herman Bergson: I loved german idealism then....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Kant, Fichte , Hegel...
[13:30] herman Bergson: That language....
[13:30] herman Bergson: So abstract....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Now I regard it as a kind of poetry...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Take Fichte....
[13:31] herman Bergson: He states that the "I" poses itself and thus creates reality...
[13:31] herman Bergson: But that is too static...
[13:32] herman Bergson: so he also introduces a non - I...
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: it would be pretty lonely otherwise
[13:32] herman Bergson: and the dynamics of reality generated from the clash between the I and th enon-I in a synthesis...
[13:33] herman Bergson: brilliant words ..real poetry... but in my eyes a waste of intellectual energy
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like a mind game
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hegel adopted Fichte's dialectics...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well already in his days, Syblye people thought that something wasn't right with this line of thinking...
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is an anecdote about Hegel...
[13:35] herman Bergson: His thesis - antithesis - syntheses didn't fit physical insights at that moment...
[13:35] herman Bergson: scientific insights in physics...
[13:36] herman Bergson: Hegel was asked about that....that reality didn't fit his model..
[13:36] herman Bergson: his answer : "To bad for reality then.."
[13:37] Velvet (velvet.braham): I kind of like Hegel a little more now.
[13:37] Velvet (velvet.braham): heh
[13:37] herman Bergson: The idealists , well some, looked down on emperical evidence...
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: but.. mustn't there become a discrepancy, if doing so?
[13:37] herman Bergson: In the philosophy of science idealism is a dead corps
[13:38] herman Bergson: not a plausible philosophy at all..
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:38] herman Bergson: But in a way it is a legacy of descartes....and rationalism...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the belief that the RATIO is the ultimate determining factor
[13:40] herman Bergson: I think that we are past that station...that the paradigma has changed considerably
[13:41] herman Bergson: I am pleased to see that you are all content with this :-)
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well ;)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well?
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: not really
[13:41] herman Bergson: smiles at Ciska
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: but for the moment i just wait for the "how it should be" then
[13:42] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: i do not think idealism is dead
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: we will see ㋡
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: let's hear your view ciska
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well....indeed..we'll see
[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: well- right now there is nothing which convinces me of materialism
[13:43] herman Bergson: Ok...then we'll see next class what alternative we have...
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: i just want to see how herman develops that further on ㋡
[13:44] herman Bergson: Very true Ciska...
[13:44] Velvet (velvet.braham): cliffhanger!
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: aww, I want a fight
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: Next lecture will offer you the first arguments
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: it will stay interesting
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: as long as we do not have those they are hard to attack druth ;)
[13:45] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Thanks, I read this later...
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): first arguments opposing idealism?
[13:45] Qwark Allen: very nice to follow the all discussion
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Velvet....
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): thank you
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman thanks folks
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): now we're talkin'
[13:45] herman Bergson: tho there hardly are arguments needed to oppose idealism...
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:46] Ladyy Haven (ladyy.haven) is Offline
[13:46] herman Bergson: science does....
[13:46] Velvet (velvet.braham): right
[13:46] herman Bergson: So thank you all for your participation..
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...
[13:47] Velvet (velvet.braham): Thank you very much!
[13:47] herman Bergson: Now I gonna fight with Druth...^_^
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: yayy!
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: waitasec...
[13:47] herman Bergson: grins at Druth
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: eek!

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

291: Brain and Morality 2

Some critics of Marc Hauser demand more than just a a catalogue of moral "grammatical " rules, like Chomsky did for language, but they want to see how these rules are encoded in the brain and its processes.

This is where natural sciences come in. Traditionally ethics was the playground of philosophers and later psychologists too. Morality is regarded as the differentia specifica, the unique quality of humans that makes them differ from other creatures.

It was the task of the philosopher to uncover the roots of our knowledge of good and evil. It has a long history. For a long time the Greek, like Plato and Aristotle, dominated the field with their claim that standards for good and evil were embedded in nature.

In the seventeenth century we see how the philosophical arena was split up in two parties: on the one hand we had the empiricists like David Hume and on the other hand we had the rationalists like Immanuel Kant.

In relation to ethics the empiricists are also called sentimentalists. This is because Hume didn't believe in universal moral principles. He believed in the inner sentiments of the individual.

When somebody is in need we just feel the urge to help him and not because we think that it is right to do so. Adam Smith (1790+) wrote a book with the characteristic name "The theory of Moral Sentiment".

Smith proposes a theory of sympathy, in which the act of observing others makes people aware of themselves and the morality of their own behavior.

On the other side of the wall we find Immanuel Kant with his Categorical Imperative. Moral truth cannot be derived from human emotions or nature. Rational thinking reveals for us the universal principles.

The most rational and logical principal then would be: Act in such a way that whatever you do could be formulated as a universal law. Or in other words you do right, if you can say that everybody should act like you.

In the long run this has lead to the fundamental dispute between utilitarianism and Duty ethics and we love to think binary: what is the source of morality…. sentiments OR ratio.

Joshua Greene,Assistant Professor Department of Psychology and neuroscientist at Harvard University uses natural sciences to find an answer to this question, in stead of philosophical analysis.

Think about this dilemma:
the switch dilemma: A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks,

one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one? Most people say "Yes."

the footbirdge dilemma: Once again, the trolley is headed for five people. You are standing next to a large man on a footbridge spanning the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to push this man off the footbridge and into the path of the trolley. Is that morally permissible? Most people say "No."

Greene himself says: "there is a different neural system that responds very differently to these two dilemmas. This system typically responds with a relatively strong, negative emotional response to the action in the footbridge dilemma, but not to the action in the switch dilemma.

When this more emotional system is engaged, its responses tend to dominate people's judgments, explaining why people tend to make utilitarian judgments in response to the switch dilemma, but not in response to the footbridge dilemma. If you make the utilitarian judgment sufficiently attractive, you can elicit a prolonged competition between these two systems."

The emotional parts of the brain have evolutionary developed prior to the prefrontal cortex, which enables us to abstract thinking and reasoning.

It may be somewhat of a simplification, but the debate between Hume and Kant looks like the debate in the brain between different parts of the brain, the more emotional part and the more reasoning part.

So it seems that moral judgement can be observed by looking at the brain activity of an individual. This could have real consequences for our moral judgements about the behavior of others.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark...the floor is yours :-)
[13:23] herman Bergson: Main issue of today is that there are two brain systems involved in moral judgements...
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: that is difficult to understand moral judgement can be observed in the brain activity
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: before or after an action is taken?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well Ciska...it can be done by MRI scanner.....
[13:24] herman Bergson: At the moment of evaluating the situation Gemma
[13:24] herman Bergson: There was a patient with serious brain damage....
[13:24] itsme Frederix: I like this topic.
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: but maybe the interpretation is not what the person means to do
[13:24] herman Bergson: This man was not able to feel.....
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i would like to see the study
[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: in the switch dilemma, I would consider the number of folks potentially harmed and weigh the possibility that one would be more than likely to avoid the trolley over the more numerous....the footbridge is a hands on, no doubt of the consequences
[13:25] herman Bergson: He wasn't able to show social behavior anymore
[13:26] itsme Frederix: Ari be rational and think like Kant, if you were the one on the alternative track you certainly would not that the switch was set to your track.
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....point in the dilemma is that when we have contact with the victim it seems to be less worse than when we just pull a switch...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Hauser observed the same regarding how people choose in such situations
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie:this dilemma is still a rational decision for me, either one either summons the sentiment or negates it
[13:27] herman Bergson: The subject of today is just the tip of a veil.....
[13:27] herman Bergson: this kind of brain research has just started
[13:28] herman Bergson: But what they observe is that in moral judgements there are two brain systems active...
[13:29] herman Bergson: But the more rational a person is, the more he tends to choose a utilitarian solution
[13:29] herman Bergson: the more impulsive a person is he tends to make an emotional choice
[13:29] herman Bergson: or one on principles
[13:29] herman Bergson: For instance....
[13:30] herman Bergson: cells from embryos can be used for research....
[13:30] herman Bergson: stem-cells they are called I guess
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: Is this morally allowed or not?
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: well as long u don't harm the embryo i say its ok
[13:30] herman Bergson: They are taken from human beings
[13:31] herman Bergson: that is impossible Bejiita
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: and as long u do it for good things
[13:31] itsme Frederix: what is good?
[13:31] Beertje Beaumont: who can be sure of that?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well there you choose the Utilitarian solution Bejiita...for the good of the greatest number...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: saving Hitler when almost dead born?
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: dont know how that research works but i know stem cells can repair the entire body sort of
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...that is the goal of that research...
[13:32] itsme Frederix: stem cells is a great topic
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bur taking out the cells should do no harm in that case
[13:32] herman Bergson: But when you are a universalist you say ..all human life is sacred....
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: :) it seems we are describing a 'moral scale' wher we weight the most harm and choose the the least amount of harm
[13:33] herman Bergson: so it is immoral to use embryos for research...
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: if u for ex kill the embryo in the process its not good
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: then have to find some other way
[13:33] herman Bergson: I think these embryos come from in vitro ferilisation...
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Bej what if the embryo was there because it could serve for stem cels
[13:33] itsme Frederix: just because for that convicted?
[13:34] itsme Frederix: there you are
[13:34] herman Bergson: Then we are close to breading embryos for research Itsme
[13:34] herman Bergson: But what my point is here is....
[13:34] itsme Frederix: yep, the same we do with pigs for meat to eat
[13:34] Beertje Beaumont: how old are these embryos?
[13:34] herman Bergson: in philosophy we have this utilitarian and Duty ethics dichotomy…
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: do we say 'now if I were an embro, would I want to be trearted like that?' or is it impossible to empathise that scenario?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm tricky question, its not right to create a life form for that reason if that life form wouldn't be allowed to live and develop as human afterwards
[13:35] herman Bergson: and in the brain there seems to be some kind of analogue division
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: its really tricky
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: i think we will learn much more as time goes
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes GEmma...I have no answer here...
[13:36] herman Bergson: But another consequence is....
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: i hadn't minded i think if they had done that on me as long they didn't harmed me but let me live and grow up just like the person I am now
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: just like any other
[13:36] itsme Frederix: Gemma you mean we as students in this class, or we as humans?
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: the argument of not using embryos is like the Pope's stance on contraception
[13:36] herman Bergson: what about guilt when we see in a brain scan that some part of the brain of a person doesn't work...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Now we just judge and convict a person because he is guilty...based on evidence of his action
[13:37] herman Bergson: Imagine that a brain scan showed that the person had no ability of rational control?
[13:37] herman Bergson: or only very weak
[13:37] itsme Frederix: I read an article last week about "guildless justice", that is a totally other view and conseqeunce if you say we have no such thing as "free will".
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...this is closely related withthe Free Will problem
[13:39] herman Bergson: A number of neurobiologists say that free will is an elusion...
[13:39] itsme Frederix: It was a Belgium author who wrote about it, seems that this kind of justice is in high study at the moment
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is on the list of future lectures
[13:39] itsme Frederix: oke
[13:39] itsme Frederix: But partly we already have accepted such things,
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes we take into account personal circumstances , the personal history and things like that
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Oke, but herman I've certainly missed something (mea culpa) what is the central topic this course?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Read the first introduction in the Weblog, Itsme...
[13:41] herman Bergson: but in a few words....
[13:41] herman Bergson: Theme is : We are our brain
[13:41] herman Bergson: A materialist view on reality
[13:41] itsme Frederix: I'm reading more than I can stand at the moment. Be comprehensive.
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Got it.
[13:42] herman Bergson: But don't worry...the free will issue from a neurobiological point of view will certainly be one of our subjects...
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)
[13:42] herman Bergson: On my desk I have a brand new book: Free Will does Not exist
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is the title...!
[13:43] herman Bergson: So you'll hear about it
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: is free will the same as free choice?
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: all this neurobiology is so very cold...I wonder if neurobiologist ever fall in love
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: many books about that.. neurobiologists love to make philosophical conclusions
[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: they don't...
[13:44] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: surely they mustn't
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Ari sure they do, neurological - some electric between the brains and they enjoy it
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: then love is just a synapse
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes baldur...nowadays it is impossible as a philosopher to ignore the neurobiolological evidence that is growing rapidly these days
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Ari yes
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: oh my, how depressing
[13:45] herman Bergson: The question of Beertje : Is free will free choice....
[13:45] herman Bergson: no....
[13:45] itsme Frederix: think of the times you failed in love - out it was - that helps I guess just a synapse
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: you are right about the 5th revolutioon.. but as with all revolutions.. takes time to understand the meanings:)
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: it will revolutionize our thinking about affection
[13:46] herman Bergson: Oh absolutely Baldur....
[13:46] herman Bergson: but that is the exciting thing of this project....
[13:46] herman Bergson: we are in the frontlines of the revolution...it takes place this very decade
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: 'I love you because my brain cell was stimulated'
[13:46] itsme Frederix: so we have a nice winter tale coming up Herman!?
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: smile.. there i agree.. and the approaches are so varied it is more then exiting..
[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: lol
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: such poetry will come from neurobiology
[13:47] herman Bergson: We will come to that Aristotle,,,but you are mixing up two languages in your declaration of love ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is the same as saying I am glad you enjoyed the H2O....you want another glass?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Smiles...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Your synapses don't respond, Aristotle?
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: I am still confident of the two parts of the brain working with each other, I think the modern approach is to dismiss our primal urges
13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: and the cerebral control of them
[13:49] herman Bergson: In a sense you could be right aristotle....
[13:50] herman Bergson: If the future is the dominance of the prefrontal cortex.....where our rationality resides...
[13:50] herman Bergson: We are just a moment in evolution.....
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully believe that we can only cover up those primal instincts, we will never remove them
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...This was just the tip of an iceberg that is awaiting us in the future...
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: no matter how intelligent we fool ourselves into believing
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i think so too
[13:52] herman Bergson: I agree Aristotle....for it would mean to remove parts of the brain
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: aaa
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: 'a frontal lobotomy'
[13:52] Beertje Beaumont: but other parts can take over
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: or a 'rear one'
[13:52] herman Bergson: ouch....that is a weird operation Aristotle...
[13:52] Beertje Beaumont: and the primary parts can shrink
[13:53] herman Bergson: I read about an effect of lobotomy....
[13:53] herman Bergson: creepy.....
[13:53] itsme Frederix: Herman that has been done before, remember the explosive guy in US years ago
[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: wonder if those folks had moral issues
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go now
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu Gemma
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma
[13:54] Beertje Beaumont: take care Gemma
[13:54] itsme Frederix: me to, I wonder what is coming of us as human?
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme....it really is an interesting wuestion...
[13:54] herman Bergson: question
[13:55] itsme Frederix: I most certainly will attempt to follow the next course thursday. I promise. Bye all
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: bye Itsme
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok bye Itsme
[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: bye itsme
[13:55] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss the class I would say...
[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation
[13:55] itsme Frederix: good luck, and ... don't worry to much about all these things. Its also fun!
[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks Professor
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: Thank you Herman
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: :), fun is just a brain cell
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: lol Ari
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:56] Beertje Beaumont: i hope it's much more
[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Just one Aristotle?
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: I am not happy, my brain is
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: as long as it feels like it does- who cares?
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: yeah, ciska...thats right
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: smiling
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:57] herman Bergson: Well sweet brains.....enjoy your day then ^_^ . Class dismissed.
[13:57] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: I will
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: regardless of wher it is or where it came form, just love and enjoy life :)
[13:58] herman Bergson: that is the idea, Aristotle !
[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: dito Aristotle