358: The Brain and back to the Identity Theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

354: The Brain and the Identity Theory 3

"The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.

Strictly speaking, it need not hold that the mind is identical to the brain. Idiomatically we do use ‘She has a good mind’ and ‘She has a good brain’ interchangeably but we would hardly say ‘Her mind weighs fifty ounces’.

Here I take identifying mind and brain as being a matter of identifying processes and perhaps states of the mind and brain.

Consider an experience of pain, or of seeing something, or of having a mental image. The identity theory of mind is to the effect that these experiences just are brain processes, not merely correlated with brain processes.

Some philosophers hold that though experiences are brain processes they nevertheless have fundamentally non-physical, psychical, properties, sometimes called ‘qualia’.
Here I shall take the identity theory as denying the existence of such irreducible non-physical properties.

Some identity theorists give a behaviouristic analysis of mental states, such as beliefs and desires, but others, sometimes called ‘central state materialists’, say that mental states are actual brain states.

Identity theorists often describe themselves as ‘materialists’ but ‘physicalists’ may be a better word. That is, one might be a materialist about mind but nevertheless hold that there are entities referred to in physics that are not happily described as ‘material’.

In taking the identity theory (in its various forms) as a species of physicalism, I should say that this is an ontological, not a translational physicalism.

It would be absurd to try to translate sentences containing the word ‘brain’ or the word ‘sensation’ into sentences about electrons, protons and so on."

These are not my words, but the words of J.J.C. Smart (1920 - …) himself in his essay on the identity theory in the http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

First published Wed Jan 12, 2000; substantive revision Fri May 18, 2007. J.J.C. Smart was 87 when he did a revision of his essay! And he is still among us, as far as my information goes.

It is interesting to read the words from the man himself, the philosopher, who put materialism again on the map. He suggests however, that physicalism is a better word than materialism. Why?

The Stanford Encyclopedia says: "Physicalism is the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on, or is necessitated by, the physical.

The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental.

The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the condition of being physical.

Of course, physicalists don't deny that the world might contain many items that at first glance don't seem physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature.

But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical."

And when you go to the page M for the entry of materialism, I guess, you will smile, for it only says:
materialism --- see physicalism.

My guess is, that this use of names has a historical background, it is a matter of modern emphasis and maybe to masks the bad sound of the word materialism, so close to materialist (old word for banker :-) or atheist.

The ontological question is not focused on matter, what the stuff is, but on the thesis that what really exists is only governed by the laws of physics as we know them today. That is our ontology here.

By the way, bookmark this page, exciting material:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/site/map/


The Discussion

[13:29] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:29] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[13:29] herman Bergson: Take your time to digest it all ㋡
[13:29] Qwark Allen: bit by bit you take us all to the basic of matter
[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman
[[13:29] herman Bergson: But the floor is yours if you have any question or remark
[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: sorry have to leave - great lecture ㋡
13:30] Qwark Allen: i think the way that materialism evolute, makes it more logical
[13:31] herman Bergson: makes what more logical Qwark?
[13:31] Qwark Allen: materialism
[13:31] Qwark Allen: physicalism sounds like a evolution of materialism
[13:31] Mick Nerido: Everything is physical in the world...science maintains also.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes...but I understand the shift to the term physicalism.....
[13:32] Qwark Allen: more adapted to the "new reality"
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:32] herman Bergson: Materialism is focused on the question...What is matter....
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: attempts to dislodge baggage, when done too early it just loads the baggage onto the new term
[13:32] herman Bergson: But I think that isn't interesting anymore...
[13:33] Qwark Allen: what is the question?
[13:33] herman Bergson: no..I wouldn't say that Druth...
[13:33] Mick Nerido: There are not spirits or souls floating around...
[13:33] herman Bergson: It is more a matter of shifting focus...
[13:34] herman Bergson: whatever matter may be....the focus is on the laws of physics..
[13:34] druth Vlodovic: oh I see, I was mistaking the root word
[13:34] herman Bergson: We know what matter is...well...atoms, protons neutron...and now we try to find higgs particles and so on
[13:35] herman Bergson: but ontologically that is not the most important thing I would say
[13:35] herman Bergson: what is more important is...that whatever there is..it follows the laws of nature we have discovered
[13:35] Mick Nerido: The deeper we dig into matter the more particals we find
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Mick…seems so....
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: we are doing a balance act between several sciences i think
[13:36] herman Bergson: but in fact philosophically it is not that important...
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: depends if you are looking for the laws or the effects of the laws
[13:36] herman Bergson: important is that whatever is, is under the laws of nature as we know them
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: or the laws of nature, whether we know them yet or not
[13:37] herman Bergson: we definitely don't know everything....
[13:37] Mick Nerido: Physicalism maintains that whatever we discover will obey scientific laws, not randomness?
[13:38] herman Bergson: there was that little upheaval about particles that seemed to move faster than lightspeed....
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: and surely there are many laws of nature we don't know
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Mick.....but there is a big BUT
[13:39] herman Bergson: whatever we call matter....at the bottom we find quantum mechanics....
[13:39] Mick Nerido: BUT?
[13:39] herman Bergson: where randomness is the rule , it seems
[13:39] Mick Nerido: ahh..
[13:39] herman Bergson: this goes deep...
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: "physicalism" sounds like "dependant on physical phenomenon" "physicsalism" might be better, except it sounds awful
[13:39] herman Bergson: Because many said that materialism is synonimous with determinism...
[13:40] Mick Nerido: over my head :)
[13:40] herman Bergson: smiles at Druth...
[13:40] herman Bergson: there are a lot of ugly words in philosophy....^_^
[13:41] Qwark Allen: what is wrong with determinism?
[13:41] druth Vlodovic: I'm sure at some point they will find formulas to make quantum mechanics deterministic
[13:41] herman Bergson: I don't know druth
[13:41] herman Bergson: There is nothing wrong with determinism, Qwark...
[13:42] Qwark Allen: in physicalism seems the laws of physical world are the "law"
[13:42] herman Bergson: the problem is only that when everything is determined by a chain of causality, we really get nervous about the concept of free will!
[13:42] Qwark Allen: if so, determinism should be a standard
[13:42] Qwark Allen: there is no free will
[13:42] Qwark Allen: we know that at a long time
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: i am not convinced of that
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well....you will be served Qwark....the chapter on the free will is already in preparation :-)
[13:43] Qwark Allen: i think after today, this idea should be more studied
[13:43] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that issue at length here, Qwark
[13:43] Qwark Allen: very nice
[13:44] herman Bergson: Dont worry...
[13:44] Qwark Allen: sounds logical
[13:44] herman Bergson: And look who is in time...Rodney!!!!
[13:44] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!!
[13:44] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: Welcome Rodney
[13:44] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: lol
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: I'm worried, I've been to a few "free will" "debates"
[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: can we bring clubs?
[13:44] Qwark Allen: class dismissed
[13:44] Qwark Allen: hehehe
[[13:45] druth Vlodovic: lots of emotionalism
[13:45] herman Bergson: The show begins...lol
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i'm going back to the show..thank you for the lecture Herman
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ohh....is that so
[13:45] Qwark Allen: very nice outfit Beertje
[13:45] herman Bergson: See you soon Beertje ^_^
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ㋡
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: TC beertje
[13:46] Qwark Allen: a pity i have to go dj-ing
[13:46] herman Bergson: isn't she gorgeous ^_^
[13:46] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:46] druth Vlodovic: where is the show?
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..I guess now we all get distracted
[13:46] herman Bergson: I can give you a LM Druth
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: please
13:47] herman Bergson: Well....for good order...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...
[13:47] Qwark Allen: ehhehehe
[13:47] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:47] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: every philosophical debate should end with a cabaret
[13:47] herman Bergson: Thank you all for you participation....
[13:47] Qwark Allen: was for sure very interesting
[13:47] herman Bergson: YEAH!
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Thanks!
[13:48] Qwark Allen: all these lectures are leading for a good conclusion
[13:48] Qwark Allen: there is no spoon!
[13:48] herman Bergson: Working on it Qwark...:)

353: The Brain and the Identity Theory 2

As I said in the previous lecture, it was around the end of the 1950s, that materialism was taken seriously. And even then it was still laughed at.

What was worse, materialism was sometimes regarded as synonymous with atheism and in the opinion of many people being an atheist is not a good thing.

To explain science and it meaning by a metaphysics in which there is no room for non physical objects or properties leaves no room for gods and the like. And the Identity Theory tells us that the mind is just a physical thing.

The identity theory gets its name because it identifies, claims an identity, between mental states and certain brain states. I say "certain" brain states,

because whilst the identity theory claims that every mental state is a brain state, it is not committed to the opposite. In fact, it's certainly not the case that every brain state is a mental state.

When J.J.C. Smart (1920 - …) articulated the identity theory he used a couple of analogies to convey his claim that mental states are brain states.

According to him, mental states are brain states in the same way that water is H2O and lightning is an atmospheric electrical discharge.

These analogies point at one specific feature. It took considerable scientific investigation to discover that water is identical to H2O and that lightning is an electric discharge and not a weapon of a god.

Similarly, the claim that mental states are brain states isn't supposed to be an obvious truth which can be established by simple observation or by reflecting on the meanings of expressions like 'belief' and 'cortex'.

Rather,the claim that mental states are brain states is plausible in part because of advances in our understanding of the human brain.

There is an other aspect with regard to identity. To make this clear we need the important type - token distinction.

In my garden I see blackbirds, sparrows and finches. They are all of the same type, that is "bird". The individual birds I call tokens of the type bird.

Now we take this one step further to understand the concept of identity, when we talk about token identity and type identity.

The current president of the US and Obama both can invite me for a party. In this case they are token identical as instantiations of the type "president" for instance.

In contrast,the identities between water and H2O,and between lightning and atmospheric electrical discharge, are type identities.

Every token of the type water is a token of the type H2O, and every token of the type Iightning is a token of the type atmospheric electrical discharge.

Science has discovered that the type water and the type H2O are identical, as are the types Iightning and atmospheric electrical discharge.

Now we may clarify the kind of identity which is meant by the Identity Theory. According to this theory there is a type identity between mental states and brain states.

For example, every token of the type pain is a token of the type c-fiber firing. The c-fiber is especial nerve which when firing gives us the experience of pain.

So, the identity theory asserts that every type of mental state is identical to a type of brain state. The brain states in question are physical states of the brain.

These identities are not supposed to be discoverable by simple observation or by examining the meanings of the terms involved. Rather, they are analogous to scientific identities like " water is H2O".

This may sound all very plausible. But as you may expect, this is a philosophical theory, thence there certainly will be people who disagree with is.

That will be the subject of our next lecture. ㋡


The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you...
[13:19] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:20] Mick Nerido: So for every mind state the is a specific brain state
[13:20] herman Bergson: The floor is yours now ... ㋡
[13:20] Qwark Allen: yes indeed
[13:20] Qwark Allen: mick
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: great
[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...that is the idea
[13:21] Gir (florencio.flores): herman but every brain is different and we are all the same thing
[13:21] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): tries every type of mental state etc
[13:21] Gir (florencio.flores): you know the human thing
[13:21] Qwark Allen: you experience pleasure when , endorfines are released in the brain
[13:21] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmm
[13:21] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): so by changing our mind we can change our brain?
[13:21] Qwark Allen: more the oppposite
[13:21] Qwark Allen: change the brain, and you change the mind
[13:22] herman Bergson: You are changing one and the same thing Beertje
[13:22] Gir (florencio.flores): herman but every brain is different and we are all the same thing
[13:22] herman Bergson: And yes Gir every brain is different.....
[13:22] Gir (florencio.flores): you know the human thing
[13:22] Gir (florencio.flores): yes yes
[13:22] herman Bergson: but we are talking about type identity....
[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: we have all different synapses
[13:23] Gir (florencio.flores): if you think in the future its just all about ID'S
[13:23] herman Bergson: so we both experience pain in our finger...btu that doesnt need to mean that your mental state is exactly identical with mine...
[13:23] Mick Nerido: The point is there is a physical manifesation in the brain for all mental states
[13:23] herman Bergson: the specific experience of for instance pain is a token of the type pain....or call it an instantiation
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...and fMRI scanners show more and more that this is the case
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:24] herman Bergson: the idea is this....
[13:25] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): then that would mean that prisoners have a brain change over the year, after the pain or imprisonment?
[13:25] herman Bergson: science could talk about water......or about H2O....
[13:25] herman Bergson: And science uses H2O ....so reduces water to H2O
[13:26] herman Bergson: something similar you could see with mental states...
[13:26] Gir (florencio.flores): but in Science herman the science got the state of plasma it is similar like the water
[13:26] herman Bergson: we talk about joy and pain....science talks about certain brain activity...
[13:27] Mick Nerido: If I am imagining Niagra Falls would every ones brain look the same doing this?
[13:27] Qwark Allen: heeheh
[13:27] herman Bergson: oops?
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ohoh
[13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:27] herman Bergson: Qwark fainted?
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): word trigger
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): fall
[13:27] Qwark Allen: was to much for me
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oops
[13:27] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:27] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:27] herman Bergson: lol
[13:27] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): if the brain activity is induced by an external factor, than would we talk about, external activity? rather than brain activity, maybe reactivity?
[13:28] herman Bergson: No Alaya....
[13:28] Gir (florencio.flores): profesor?
[13:28] herman Bergson: and no Mick.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: the instantiation of your mental image of the Niagara f*lls
[13:28] herman Bergson: can be different from the one in my mind
[13:29] herman Bergson: Gir?
[13:29] Gir (florencio.flores): but in Science herman the science got the state of plasma it is similar like the water
[13:29] herman Bergson: what do you mean by that, Gir?
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: it was very interesting! ty herman&class!!
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum:
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: .,¡i|¹i¡¡i¹|i¡,. .,¡i|¹i¡¡i¹|i¡,.
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: `'¹li¡|¡|¡il¹'` `'¹li¡|¡|¡il¹'`
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum:
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see u!
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:30] herman Bergson: smiles at Bergie
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: TC Bergfrau
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Bergfrau
[13:30] Gir (florencio.flores): yes herman that science could need for some things water
[13:30] Gir (florencio.flores): but it has it own plasma state
[13:30] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): type plasma?
[13:31] Gir (florencio.flores): yes alaya
[13:31] Florencio spanked Qwark's ass ...
[13:31] herman Bergson: The issue here is that the concept of water is so to speak translated into another language...the language of chemistry
[13:31] Mick Nerido: and not just fire earth air and water...
[13:32] herman Bergson: and we have chooses for that language eventually because we can explain more using that language than using terms like 'water' or 'air'
13:32] Lizzy Pleides: if you say H2O to a child it won't understand
[13:32] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): lol
[13:32] herman Bergson: no....neither would a single person from the Middle Ages
[13:32] Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): do you want a glass of type h2o
[13:33] Qwark Allen: or from certain parts of Africa or Australia
[13:33] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes plz ㋡
[13:34] herman Bergson: As I said.....the discovery of the identity of water and H2O is the result of scientific research....not just an obvious conclusion from observation
[13:34] Gir (florencio.flores): allright
[13:34] herman Bergson: You amy joke about a glass of H2O, but it tells us yet something...
[13:35] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: Maybe one day we will revise our language and for example drop the term water and start talking about H2O only...
[13:36] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:36] Mick Nerido: H2O, h2o everywhere and not a drop to drink?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Like we have dropped a lot of words as real descriptions of reality...for example, spell, curse etc...
[13:36] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:36] Gir (florencio.flores): you mean that starting to live the era of scientific reality herman?
[13:36] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:36] herman Bergson: We use them now knowing that these words do not describe reality
[13:36] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:37] herman Bergson: We already live in that aera, Gir
[13:37] cup of water FoolYa Illusions_worn on r hand whispers: Ahhh Water
[13:37] herman Bergson: lol....
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: but we have different kinds of water
[13:37] Gir (florencio.flores): ok
[13:37] herman Bergson: water !!!
[13:37] Gir (florencio.flores): brb
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:37] Coagulate Script Counter: Your script count went up by 1 to 91 scripts.
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ohoh
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh dear this class is deteriorating
[13:38] herman Bergson: smiles...
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): maybe another analogy would be better at the next class
[13:38] herman Bergson: Time to thank you all for your participation
[13:38] Qwark Allen: fall
[13:38] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ㋡
[13:38] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:38] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): thnx
[13:39] herman Bergson: oh dear...
[13:39] herman Bergson whispers: what did you put in the water Alaya!!!
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): lol