273: Hard to believe

"All human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas." ; That is what Immanuel Kant says in his "Critique of Pure Reason "(1781).

I think, that this is a example of a perfect understanding of the mind. And this in 1781, when there didn't exist any knowledge of the brain or neurobiology. Even Kant already understood that the brain had a life of its own.

In the former lecture I concluded that we can distinguish three belief-systems: Science, Religion and the profane supernatural. As Kant says, they begin with intuitions.

They end up with ideas, but are these ideas ideas about the world around us in the sense that we may call it knowledge? In fact, the only belief-system that leads to knowledge about reality is science. And science is based on logic and rationality.

However, this conviction has lead to the belief, that science is the safest way to deal with the world around us. Just look what we have achieved in technology, physics or in medicines and healthcare.

From an evolutionary point of view this may be right, so what to do with the supernatural part of our thinking. In 2006 Richard Dawkins had an outspoken opinion about it in his book "The God Delusion".

-QUOTE-
"I decry supernaturalism in all its forms, and the most effective way to proceed will be to concentrate on the form most likely familiar to my readers—the form that impinges most threateningly on all our societies. . . .

I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."
-END QUOTE-

But does this attack make sense or is it fighting windmills like our well known Don Quichotte did? I think it is fighting windmills due to the design of our mind.

Supernatural beliefs may emerge spontaneously in children as they develop as a natural by-product of their mind design. These beliefs do not need to come from culture.

For a great part religious beliefs come from education. Children are easy to believe what others tell them, but on the other hand our brain is strongly inclined to accept these beliefs too.

A good example of such a the belief is creationism. From childhood on our basic intuition about the world is, that it is organized as it is in dead matter, living creatures, plants , insects, animals, humans….

As a child you have no other experience than that the world was there, is there and tomorrow will there be too. Because the mind is inclined to supernatural beliefs, it is quite willing to believe that this was created just like that at some given moment.

Our minds are naturally inclined to a creationist view. After all, creationism was created by the human mind, whereas evolution by natural selection is a fact that was discovered.

How can the complexity of design emerge without a designer? That is what our mind can not grasp, because experience tells us that for instance building a car is a very complex process which starts with a designer and a design.

A second thing is that our mind is not able to understand is the possibility of an evolution taking millions of years. In our short live the best we can experience is the birth of a baby and witness its development, which means it just grows up…Nothing new emerges. All was there from the beginning…head hands, toes and so on.

So evolution theory is contrary to our intuitions. The fact that we are genetically equal for 98% with a chimpanzee and even for 50% with a banana, we still have trouble to believe for us that all life in all its diversity came from the same basic matter.

Let alone, that we easily can believe that all this diversity and complexity emerged in a rather random process of evolution over a period of million years. Our intuition is that developments must have a goal, isn't it?

Despite all efforts, we must conclude that it is not feasible to try to ban all kinds of supernatural thinking, including religion. It is in our genes.

To quote Bruce Hood: "The geneticist Dean Hamer has even identified a gene, vesicular monoamine transporter 2, or VMAT2, that is linked to the personality traits of spirituality.

He found that in a survey of over two hundred people including twins, those who share religiosity also share VMAT2. This gene controls a number of the brain chemicals responsible for controlling moods.

Neuroscientists such as Andrew Newberg have even made progress toward identifying the relevant neural circuitry that is activated during religious experiences, again suggesting a brain-based account for the spiritual.So maybe our brains and our own unique mind design determine whether we believe or not."

And did you ever realize that Second Life has supernatural traits. Ever seen two avatars hug? And you there at the keyboard, what do you see and feel? Just pixels moving on a screen or do you experience more?


The Discussion

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:26] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark..plz feel free
[13:26] Bejiita Imao: ah
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: did you see that Stephen Hawkings has a new book out that explains that the universe could come without a creator??
[13:27] herman Bergson: and it was a woman who smiled....^_^
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he is not saying that there is not one
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Hawkins is a problem...
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: he is just saying that there is proof that there is a possibililty that it was not necessary
[13:27] Adriana Jinn: don't you think that intuition is totally apart
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes...a bit weird argument...
[13:28] herman Bergson: one thing...
[13:28] herman Bergson: it is chaos among cosmologists…any theory goes...
[13:28] herman Bergson: that string theory is just nothing..
[13:28] herman Bergson: here we see the same thing as in understanding evolution...
[13:29] herman Bergson: our brain cant understand it....
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: very true
[13:29] herman Bergson: just simple example...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes hard to grasp
[13:29] herman Bergson: they talk about a big bang....
[13:29] herman Bergson: inmy opinion..complete bull
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hmm im not sure about it either
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: I hope the LHC will shed some light on it
[13:30] herman Bergson: for that big bang had to take place WHERE???
[13:30] herman Bergson: In Space???
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: well yes
[13:30] Qwark Allen: between two universes
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: where else
[13:30] herman Bergson: But then we get into an infinite regress...
[13:30] Qwark Allen: the colisions of two of them
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: i mean how can a explosion occur from nothing
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess we have to read hawkings book
[13:30] herman Bergson: Exactly...
[13:30] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:30] Qwark Allen: it was massive impact
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: what caused that explosion
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: that is what he will try to tell you
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: i think
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: not sure about the big bang theory
[13:31] Bruce Mowbray: Neuro-biologists like Andrew Newberg reduce "spiritual thought" to brain function. . . . Do they consider there might be a substrate to brain physiology?
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: is in there
[13:31] herman Bergson: They arent all happy with Hawkins stand Gemma...not at all...
[13:32] herman Bergson: it is just a theory..where he puts his money on...
[13:32] herman Bergson: Ok Back to Bruce and our focus of today..
[13:33] herman Bergson: Is brain acivity an other word for mind...?
[13:33] herman Bergson: We will dig into that question when we go into th emore philosophical discourses...
[13:33] herman Bergson: for now yes..
[13:34] Qwark Allen: there could be brain activity, and no mind on it
[13:34] herman Bergson: brain activity = the mind...
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ah true
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: no brain activity = no mind presnt
[13:34] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:34] Qwark Allen: brain activity it`s a cinequanon for mind, but not allways
[13:35] herman Bergson: But this has serious consequences for religious ideas for instance..
[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: "no brain activity = no mind present" can neither be proved nor disproved.
[13:35] herman Bergson: sine qua non
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes
[13:36] Adriana Jinn: when you are in a coma what happens ?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...here we come in the philosophical battle field...
[13:37] Qwark Allen: depends on the cause, and on type of coma
[13:37] herman Bergson: For now I stay out of that debate and act as a pure materialist...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well coma Adriana ..there are various kinds..
[13:37] herman Bergson: there is a brain condition where the person still is aware of his environment..
[13:38] herman Bergson: we dont knw exactly what the coma is..
[13:38] Adriana Jinn: but the mind is not present ?
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes the mind is present...
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: then you wouldn't be aware if your surroundings
[13:38] herman Bergson: there are cases of people recovering from a coma...
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yesz
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: perfectly well
[13:38] herman Bergson: who had heard all discussions at the bed by doctors and others
[13:39] Qwark Allen: in the guineess, there are a person that recovered from the coma 50 years after
[13:39] Adriana Jinn: i would think that the brain is there but not the mind
[13:39] herman Bergson: the brain is a very complex machine...
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: i think the mind is there just impaired at the time
[13:39] Qwark Allen: got in come while was a child
[13:39] Adriana Jinn: yes sure
[13:39] Qwark Allen: coma*
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: unable to work through the brain
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: Suppose I have a "reverence" for the Big Bang and the evolutionary process. . . . (I am a Pantheist.) --- Is that not also a "religious experience" even though there is nothing super-natural about it?
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: to the body
[13:39] Bruce Mowbray: reverence --- not reference. sorry.
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that was one form of religion yes bruce
[13:40] herman Bergson: the mind is just the activity of braincells like movement of th eare is just acrivity of muscles
[13:40] herman Bergson: of the arm
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: So, my neurons are firing like those of a Christian fundamentalist -- but the object of my "worship" is Nature. . .
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: oh my i hope not
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: the cf i mean
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well Bruce...as I mentioned in the lecture...it might depend on your genes..:-)
[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: It seems to me that reduction through neuro-biology is very similar to CF --
[13:42] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:42] herman Bergson: To put it in an extreme way...
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: We now pronounce brain chemistry, etc. as THE WAY IT IS.
[13:42] herman Bergson: your genes and brain determine whter you are a spiritual person or not
[13:42] Bruce Mowbray: That's a perfect example of what I am driving at.
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: well could be any fundalmentalist then not just christian ..... jewish .... muslim.....hindu......
[13:43] Qwark Allen: i think the socio-cultural surrouding there, have a big importance
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: not to mention all the others
[13:43] Bruce Mowbray: Pre-destination to Calvin is now "determinism" via brain physiology.
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well..there are two things...
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: not too fast here plz....
[13:44] herman Bergson: one thing..yes Bruce ..we have to face the debate on determinism...
[13:44] herman Bergson: and second....
[13:44] Bruce Mowbray wonders when neuro-plasticity will be mentioned.
[13:44] herman Bergson: tho the mind has an inclination to belief in supernatural things...
[13:45] herman Bergson: on the one hand it differs from person to person
[13:45] herman Bergson: and second..it differs form culture to culture where a person is born..
[13:45] herman Bergson: so the nature / nurture balance differs from situation to situation
[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: So. . . . it's either cultural determinism or neurological determinism....? Is individual choice to change one's brain also determined?
[13:46] herman Bergson: when I am an illiterate afgan is quite different forma European academic...in relation to the use of supersense
[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: If I chose to meditated -- and bring forth in my brain the results of meditation -- is that choice determined?
[13:47] herman Bergson: Bruce..I promise you...you get a whole series of lectures onthat for you especially ^_^
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: fine -- but meanwhile I will operate on the assumption (and the experience) that I am free to bring forth changes in the functioning of my brain.
[13:48] herman Bergson: Because you hit the bulls eye yes...
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: let us know how that works
[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: neuro-plasticity.
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles...
[13:49] Bejiita Imao: ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson: neuro gymnastics
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: changes in the physiology of the brain -- brought about by my personal choice.
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: we all do that
[13:49] Qwark Allen: yep
[13:49] herman Bergson: Oh Bruce...
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: can be possible at least in part i think
[13:49] Qwark Allen: more or less
[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: A simple phrase: "What fires together, wires together...."
[13:49] herman Bergson: You really are walking on the wild side now...^_^
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Wild? Folks have been meditating for thousands of years....
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: it will be interesting
[13:50] herman Bergson: Great!!!!!
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: in order to change their brain function.
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: Now we see it through our instruments.
[13:50] Qwark Allen: just not, if you have a stroke, or any brain illness
[13:50] herman Bergson: You just point at what is ahead of us Bruce...!
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: ok.
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray sits on hands.
[13:50] Qwark Allen: some are genetic
[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:50] herman Bergson: thnx Bruce lol
[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: ;-)
[13:50] Bejiita Imao: ㋡
[13:50] Qwark Allen: it`s your genes, that made possible you have that choice bruce
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well this is a terrific discussion...
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting
[13:51] herman Bergson: It shows what we still have to face...!
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: really ㋡
[13:51] Qwark Allen: ;-)))
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: thursday more
[13:52] Adriana Jinn: for true
[13:52] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \O/ \O/ \O/
[13:52] Qwark Allen: | | |
[13:52] Qwark Allen: / \ / \ / \
[13:52] herman Bergson: For the time being I will stick to my materialist approach...
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:52] herman Bergson: So thank you all..this was great ..thnx Bruce inparticualr
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: yw
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ssee you all thursday
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: yay¨
[13:52] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:52] Qwark Allen: yw
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:53] herman Bergson: We still have a long way to go...
[[13:53] Bruce Mowbray: Thank you everyone.
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: awesome
[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: yw
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:53] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman!! ty class :-))
[13:53] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman and thanks all

270: The Design of the Mind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discusion

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

12 The Golden Rule

Our main question at this moment still is, how to justify our moral judgements. On what do I ground my judgement that I ought to do something, that some action is morally wrong?

In our former lectures, dealing with the ideas of William Frankena, I found an interesting combination of ideas of moral duty, rationality and also a utilitarian approach. So he stays on my list.

But can't it be way more easier, based on thousands of years of human history? Don't we have what we call "The Golden Rule". Read this:

-quote-
A UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF A GLOBAL ETHIC

III. A FUNDAMENTAL RULE
We propose the Golden Rule, which for thousands of years has been affirmed in many religious and ethical traditions, as a fundamental principle upon which to base a global ethic:

"What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others," or in positive terms, "What you wish done to yourself, do to others." This rule should be valid not only for one's own family, friends, community and nation, but also for all other individuals, families, communities, nations, the entire world, the cosmos.
-end quote

The Wikipedia (EN) has an extensive article on the Golden Rule: "The golden rule has its roots in a wide range of world cultures, and is a standard which different cultures use to resolve conflicts; it was present in the philosophies of ancient India, Greece, Judea and China."

So, global ethics, a long history and support of the rule in Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Judaism: this rule seems to have the best papers as a way to justify moral judgements.

There may even be an evolutionary base in the phenomenon of reciprocity. In social psychology, reciprocity refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action, and responding to a negative action with another negative one.

But I think you already feel it coming: this is not my favorite rule at all. And it seems I am in good company. The philosopher Immanuel Kant himself rejects the the golden rule in his Critique of Practical Reason, not by discussing it extensively but just in a footnote.
So what is wrong with this rule?

The norm of reciprocity varies widely in its details from situation to situation, and from society to society. Anthropologists and sociologists have often claimed, that having some version of the norm appears to be a social inevitability.

And there is the catch. Reciprocity may exist, but is depended on situations, societies and cultures. Just imagine…… some examples:

It is a consequence of someone's deepest religious conviction that his wife should wear a burkha and should walk 2 meters behind him in public, not at his side? Is this this man acting immorally to do this to his wife?

Or another situation. I see that a man falls in a canal in Amsterdam. I know that man. Was smarter than the police and escaped conviction of rape, women abuse, forced prostitution and women slavery.

The evidence was waterproof and corroborating, but he got away because of such a legal formality, that was not correctly applied. And now he yells "I can't swim !!"

What is my moral duty? Would I like to drown? No! But then, save the man? That would mean that he possibly will continue his horrible treatment of women and criminal behavior and hurt other people again.

Or when the man gets convicted he could ask the judge, if he would like to spend the rest of his life in jail. Would he do that to himself? I guess not. So isn't is justified then to let the convicted man go?

We must conclude that this rule wont work as a universal one, but within the boundaries of a specific group, it definitely can be used as a guiding principle. It relates to the reciprocity, which can be observed in the behavior of primates.

But what about Kant. When he wipes such a golden rule off the table in a footnote, then he must have been pretty convinced about his own rightness, when he proposed his Categorical Imperative.

Kant's rule: "I am never to act otherwise than that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. It is the simple conformity to law in general that serves the will as its principle."

Suppose I lie to you, telling you that Christmas won't be celebrated this year due to the global warming of the climate…. no snow. I should say to myself… suppose it is a universal law that everyone may lie.

Any rational person will say, that that is not good, so my lie about Xmas is immoral. Thou shall not lie. Ok, an other example then.

They knock on the door. I open the door and there is the Gestapo: "We are searching for Jews. Do you hide jews in your home?" I answer "NO" and my jewish friends hiding in the attic feel relieved.

There is a lot more to say about Kant's ideas, but he doesn't stand the test either. So, although it looks so attractive to solve all moral issues with a single rule, we must conclude that life isn't that simple.

To finish a simple instruction on how to use google to study philosophy. Many of us have the habit of typing one or two words as search key. That is ok, but may I advise you to type as search key, for instance, "What is wrong with the Golden Rule".

You will be amazed about the results you get. The only critical thing is that you need the knowledge and insight to determine what is rubbish and what result of the search has quality.

In other words, use as search key anything you like, words but also whole phrases. The search engine of Google, Yahoo, Altavista or whatever program you like to use does the rest.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: That is my Golden Rule for today ㋡
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:23] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: perhaps if it started from the beginning as the way of life it might work
[13:23] herman Bergson: It works really fine
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: but it did not
[13:24] herman Bergson: interesting is to see that this golden rule principle occures in almost every religion
[13:24] oola Neruda: i think one of the things that is both obvious but also not factored in...is that not everyone lives by that rule
[13:24] herman Bergson: but what it overlooks is cultural differences
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:24] Scope Cleaver: Do you adhere to that rule personally?
[13:24] oola Neruda: thus some of the examples are weakened
[13:24] herman Bergson: tho in all cultures people come to the same conslusion
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i try but it dos not always work lol
[13:25] herman Bergson: usually a normal person adheres to that rule
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: when i thought about it, i realized i've always thought of the Golden Rule as just a rule of thumb
[13:25] herman Bergson: it is simply the reciprocity principle which is common to social behavior
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Repose...within the context of your own culture it works
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: but we see that cultural differences disable the application of the rule
[13:27] Ludwig John: and what rule have the terrorist have in Iraque or Afghanistan?
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: they don't
[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: one mans terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter
[13:27] Daruma Boa: in war and love everything is allowed. another rule;-)
[13:27] herman Bergson: well they just long for dieing as a martyr and would certainly wish this to you too Ludwig
[13:28] Yejiba Severine: So sorry Professor, I have to go now :(
[13:28] herman Bergson: Like a sadist is a masochist applying the golden rule
[13:28] Ludwig John: does god respect that Golden Rule?
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Yi
[13:28] herman Bergson: Bye Yejiba ㋡
[13:28] Daruma Boa: bye yejiba
[[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: hahaha
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: one additional problem with it might be that it seems to have the structure of an infinite regress...
[13:29] herman Bergson: What do you mean Repose?
[[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Wiki called it the "self-correcting" nature of the Rule
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: not so sure its a good thing
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: guy goes into a bar looking for a fight
[13:30] herman Bergson: ah ..yes.... the Wiki article is worth reading
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:31] herman Bergson: YEs that is a nice one....leads to a big fight:)
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: not necessarily
[13:31] herman Bergson: and all following the golden rule
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: if he considers whether he would want others to apply the rule as he is donig
[13:31] herman Bergson: Indeed..not when he hits a pacifist ㋡
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: but then you can twist the argument back on itself again
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: and again
[13:32] herman Bergson: or one who offers him the other cheek too ㋡
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: infinite regress
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: always suspicious of those
[13:32] herman Bergson smiles
[13:32] herman Bergson: they don't bite
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: in physics, they indicate a lack of knowledge
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: and theoretical adequacy
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: suspect in ethics
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: same thing
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:33] herman Bergson: ANyway, I think that the golden rule is nice general wisdom, but hardly a way to justify our moral judgements
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:34] Scope Cleaver: Sorry crashed, I must have missed your response
[13:34] herman Bergson: It can be used as a personal guideline tho
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: and so we go on searching for the handle to the door
[13:34] herman Bergson: You were out of Scope?
[13:34] Scope Cleaver: Yes for a few minutes
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:35] Scope Cleaver: I had asked if you did adhere to the rule yourself, before I crashed
[13:35] herman Bergson: Oh ..I answered that it is general behavior within a given culture to do so, I f=guess
[13:35] Daruma Boa: hi tsme
[13:35] Daruma Boa: +i
[13:35] itsme Frederix: ;)
[13:36] herman Bergson: It is based ion the nor of reciprocity which is part of our social behavior
[13:36] herman Bergson: and not only ours
[13:36] herman Bergson: funny story about baboons.....who help each other
[13:37] Scope Cleaver: Yes, I understand there is/possibly could be an evolutionary explanation for it.
[13:37] herman Bergson: the alpha male controls all attractive females..
[13:37] herman Bergson: the younger ones get together and start distracting the alpha male
[13:37] herman Bergson: then the each at his turn can mate with the females of the alpha male
[13:38] herman Bergson: I distract him you take the girl..then you do the same for me
[13:38] Ludwig John whispers: Owner say /chat or touch me
[13:38] herman Bergson: so this reciprocity also appears in social behavior of other primates
[13:39] herman Bergson: The golden rule has just a limited scope
[13:40] herman Bergson: If you have no further questions we should prepare for the next lecture and try to find other answers
[13:40] herman Bergson: answers
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:40] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation ㋡
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: ty professor
[13:41] Ludwig John: thank you
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday i hope
[13:41] Scope Cleaver: Next lecture being next week? or today?
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:41] herman Bergson: What has happened to you Itsme...cloak and dagger stories?
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: I enjoyed it
[[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: as always
[13:41] herman Bergson: Next lecture is onThursday, Scope ㋡
[13:41] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:41] Daruma Boa: and looks a bit like death
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: WOOOOOOOO
[13:42] Scope Cleaver: Yes I have tons of questions if we have time...
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: oops
[13:42] Daruma Boa: how much is the fish?
[13:42] Daruma Boa: ^^
[13:42] herman Bergson: Have you become a sorcerer Itsme?
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: AH HAHAHAHA
[13:43] Scope Cleaver: This is Q&A?
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: i think
[13:44] Scope Cleaver: herman?
[13:44] herman Bergson: Well...class dismissed
[13:44] Ludwig John: good night and good bye