skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If you had the choice to get rid of one specific emotion from the collection that cheers up our human lives, I guess that anger would be one of the first candidates.Like grief we regard it as a negative feeling, but some of you were surprised to hear me talk about grief as a positive feeling. You won't believe it, but also anger can be regarded as a positive feeling.But here is the catch: in your personal experience you'll certainly find grief and anger emotions you prefer to avoid, but here WE look at emotions from an evolutionary point of view.And then is not the main question "How does it feel?" but "Has the emotion an evolutionary advantage?" And then we can say that rage is not always destructive. It can be very constructive…Rage is not synonymous with aggression. Aggression is an act, while rage is an emotion, a drive. A lot of rage is without aggression. Rage can even prevent aggression.We have rage in all colors and flavors: from a mild annoyance to a true furiosity. But all have one thing in common. Rage generates energy. It gives us the power to overcome an obstacle.That is the main function of rage: it focuses our energy on the realization of a goal that apparently is blocked by some one or something.It may be a bit mean, but you already can test it on a baby. A baby wants to move its arms and legs freely in all directions. When you block an arm from moving in any direction the little one will frantically try to move his arm and protest furiously.This could be seen as the quintessence of the emotion: the fact that we are frustrated in achieving some goal. The intensity of the rage is often determined by the degree of frustration we experience.It makes a difference whether someone deliberately works against us, or if someone accidentally does that, or when an inanimate object blocks the achieving of our goal.This makes me think of typical movie psychology… or does this count only for American movie psychology? Rage is not a simple emotion. There is a connection between rage and grief.Most of the time, not always, is our reaction on a failure or loss caused by the cause of it. If it is a person, who deliberately got in our way, rage may turn into aggression and make us beat up our hindrance.If it is a person, who is unaware of the fact that he got in our way….. well we may show an angry face but then swallow our anger and move on.If it is your dog or an inanimate object we may feel disappointment and subsequently grief. But then it begins….. You say to the dog "STUPID DOG!!!" and things like that.And here comes the movie psychology: he is pursuing the serial killer…almost gets him..then his car breaks down….geez..was just a matter of seconds….He gets out of his car and starts yelling at it. Then he starts kicking it. He smashes the windows and so on. Rage, that leads to aggression, even against an inanimate object.It is a cute reference to our prehistorical ancestors. They thought that the animals, trees and rocks had a soul. It even is present in our own psychological development. Jean Piaget (9 August 1896 – 16 September 1980), a Swiss developmental psychologist and philosopher known for his epistemological studies with children, called it the animism in the magical thinking in the age of 2 to 7: the belief that your doll really feels pain…. And movie directors love to display such atavistic or childlike behavior.Rage and grief can also be closely related , when a man is rejected by a woman of whom he expected or hoped that she would say YES to him.He leaves her house, feeling sad, but gradually his sadness turns into anger and rage (She has some one else !!!) and he could turn around and his rage could turn into aggression…..A lot of interpersonal violence is caused by failed love affairs, most of the time committed by men against women.Why must running into an obstacle to achieve our goal be accompanied by an emotion we don't like at all: rage? Why did it survive evolution? I'll answer this question in the next lecture.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you...^_^[13:24] herman Bergson: Feel free to come up with remarks or questions..floor is yours[13:24] Doodus Moose: if i experience something more like frustration...[13:24] Usher Piers: thanks :)[13:24] Doodus Moose: i find myself doing something that needed to be done for a long time[13:24] Doodus Moose: ....like installing a door, for instance[13:24] herman Bergson smiles[13:25] Mick Nerido: If our ancestors didn't feel rage and overcome obstacles we would not be here now[13:25] herman Bergson: Very true Mick[13:25] herman Bergson: But that is with all emotions....they offered an evolutionary advantage to the species[13:26] herman Bergson: The thing i s only that we still have these basic emotions while our environment has changed so much[13:26] Mick Nerido: Sublimated rage is very powerful energy[13:27] herman Bergson: Oh yes Mick..we'll get to that next lecture![13:27] Doodus Moose: a stress counselor once said "if you can't control your boss at work, clean up your office"[13:27] herman Bergson: may be a good advise Doodus..but how does it relate to rage?[13:28] Doodus Moose: sort of like holding the baby's arm - you can't control something ?[13:28] Mick Nerido: If I get angry and can't change the situation I go to the gym :)[13:29] herman Bergson: well I guess it is all about the feeling of control in such moments...[13:29] herman Bergson: If you can't control your boss...[13:29] herman Bergson: cleaning uo your desk is a show of control...for yourself...[13:29] Doodus Moose: [13:29] Mick Nerido: Passive agressive[13:30] herman Bergson: Going to the gym…control of you body![13:30] Doodus Moose: ...also stress release![13:30] Ciska Riverstone: it makes sense to feel more energy when an obstacle is in the way - otherwise you have no chance to overcome it...[13:30] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): rage normally is not good for peaceful living together[13:30] Mick Nerido: Yes I am in better shape so an survival advantage[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes when u really want something but it struggles[13:31] Bejiita Imako: like now for i want my inventory to come back again[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes ciska's remark is quitessential...[13:31] Bejiita Imako: and i hope it does for sure[13:31] herman Bergson: and what siggi says too![13:31] herman Bergson: We'll get to that in the next lecture...[13:32] Mick Nerido: Rage is an outgoing emotion grief is inward[13:32] herman Bergson: Why didn't we discard of rage as an emotion in evolution?[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what is the diffrence between rage and anger?[13:33] herman Bergson: anger is just the feeling of the moment Beertje...[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: we did not discard it but didn't the acceptance change quiet a lot ? the cultural one?[13:33] herman Bergson: when you are in rage you are angry, so to speak..[13:33] herman Bergson: when you are in grief you feel sad....[13:34] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you[13:34] herman Bergson: the difference between emotion and feeling...[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:34] Mick Nerido: You look sexy when you are angry is an expression[13:34] herman Bergson: the emotion is like the conductor of an orchestra...he sets all kinds of instruments in motion...[13:34] Doodus Moose: [13:35] Bilthor Esharham: ㋡[13:35] Bilthor Esharham: ㋡[13:35] herman Bergson: a feeling is just a mood[13:35] Zinzi Serevi: sometimes i think a man can more easy feel rage then grief[13:36] herman Bergson: hmmmm...Zinzi.....I don tknow....[13:36] herman Bergson: I call rage a secondary emotion....[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: well when you feel rage you can do something[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: if you feel grief its more difficult[13:37] herman Bergson: we'll get to that later but I mean ..underneath the rage is an other emotion...covered up by the rage[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: yes[13:37] herman Bergson: so grief and rage aren't equivalent...[13:38] herman Bergson: rage is a complex emotion...[13:38] herman Bergson: a mix so to speak[13:38] Doodus Moose: perhaps someday we can discuss those things that "control" our emotions, (ie: prevent our rage from making us do something stupid)[13:38] Doodus Moose: (self control)[13:39] herman Bergson: But we do that a lot of times Doodus..[13:39] herman Bergson: You read an article in your nespaper...you get really angry about it....[13:39] herman Bergson: and then....?[13:40] herman Bergson: you put your anger/rage in your pocket and move on..[13:40] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): rage often keeps people away from thinking rationally[13:40] herman Bergson: or join the action committee related to it for instance[13:40] Mick Nerido: You write a letter to the paper[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Siggi[13:41] herman Bergson: and you know what happens when you see a video of yourself in rage???[13:41] herman Bergson: You feel embarrassed to see you act so irrationally[13:42] Doodus Moose: hilarious[13:42] herman Bergson: yes indeed Doodus[13:42] herman Bergson: good for a laugh indeed[13:42] Bilthor Esharham: *** HOHOHO THAT IS A GOOD ONE !!! ***[13:42] herman Bergson: Well I am glad nobody got in rage here today...^_^[13:43] herman Bergson: so thank you for this nice discussion...:-)[13:43] Bejiita Imako: was interesting[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): maybe next time we will Herman :))[13:43] herman Bergson: See you next Thursday[13:43] Bejiita Imako: oki now i must try dfix my invent[13:43] Bejiita Imako: cu later soon[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You Professor - interesting as always :)[13:43] Zinzi Serevi: thank you Herman, see you all later..:)[13:43] herman Bergson: Thank you ciska[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: fingers crossed for it Bejiita[13:43] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you an good night[13:44] Mick Nerido: Thanks see you next class[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hope it works[13:44] Doodus Moose: thanks all, this was really enjoyable :)[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: good day/night all :)[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was very interesting:)[13:44] Bilthor Esharham: Very thanks ....and good night for all.[13:44] Bilthor Esharham: bye[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks[13:44] Bilthor Esharham: Namaarie[13:44] herman Bergson: Bye Bilthor
"We treat the mind and the body as separate because that is what we experience. I am controlling my body, but I am more than just my body. We sense that we exist independently of our bodies.", says Bruce Hood.This is a very peculiar situation, we are in. It does not, however, touch our epistemological position, in my opinion. Kant is right when he states that the mind has its own mechanisms to make sensory experiences meaningful experiences.Otherwise stated, we would say that the brain is not an empty vessel that gets filled up as soon as consciousness emerges in the human organism, but that it comes with a extensive toolbox to help it understand and interact with its environment.Statements which are knowledge claims, tell us something about the world, which is independent of the mind and describe states of affairs, which we can check.One state of affairs of which we claim that it is really the case, is our conclusion that the mind is generated by the brain. No brain means no mind.A physically damaged brain means a damaged mind. A chemically influenced brain with pills or drugs results in a seriously influenced or confused mind.And yet we generally experience our mind as a kind of independent of our body. The mind controls the body and we are not easily inclined to believe that the body controls the mind, although this seems to be the actual state of affairs.Linguistically the mind is enigmatic. We can construct sentences which have a proper syntax, but sound so puzzling. For instance:"I have a mind."Pretty simple observation it seems, isn't it, but compare it with the statement "I have a car". Looks 100% the same, but the semantical conclusions are puzzling.That car isn't me. It is an physical object,which I possess. The statement "I have a mind" can't have the same semantics. The mind is not some physical object. Then what does this statement mean? And who is that "I" who possesses a mind?You probably know officer Murphy from the movie Robocop. His brain without memories is implanted in a cybernetic machine. He is regarded to be just a machine until gradually his memories come back.In Kafka's The Metamorphosis (Die Verwandlung, 1915) Gregor Samsa discovered that he has changed into a huge beetle, but he still is Gregor Samsa.These examples suggest that we have some strong opinions about what makes something a unique human person. Adults are inclined to believe you are you as long as your mind and memories are there, whether the brain is in a jar or in your body.Our conscious experience of our own minds and memories inclines us to think of minds being unique and the source of personal identity. We certainly don’t think our own minds and memories could belong to other people, says Bruce Hood in his book Supersense.Alzheimer confronts us too with this idea of personal identity. A friend of mine once said to me: " It is so hard to visit her. She looks like my mother, but she isn't my mother anymore."From childhood on we grow up with this dualistic view. Then it is easy to believe that the mind is not necessarily chained to the physical brain.Thence, could there be a possibility, that the mind can escape the fate of the physical body and survive? This is a view that is strongly supported by all kinds of religions,but we must recognize that the concept of the immortal soul originates in the normal reasoning processes of every child.In an article, “The Development of ‘Afterlife’ Beliefs in Secularly and Religiously Schooled Children,” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23 (2005), three researchers observedthat children raised in a secular environment may express fewer afterlife beliefs than children raised in a religious household, but they still retain notions of some form of mental life that survives death.The survival of such ideas into adulthood does not need to be the result of indoctrination in childhood. It appeals to our supersense to think that we can continue to exist after our death.I won't deal with these issues now, but here we run into fundamental philosophical questions about The Self, Consciousness and Personal Identity.That is work still to be done, so stay tuned!
The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: thank you :-)[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark....feel free..[13:24] herman Bergson: This was a bit much I guess in a nutshell[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: the mind is not chained to the body[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: I wonder if a child were isolated from birth to the interview if they would express the same belief in the after life of their mind[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i think they would not expect the life they are in to disappear[13:25] herman Bergson: Well Gemma...in fact the mind is...tho we have difficulty to believe this[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: so.. isolation would not lead to death thoughts[13:25] herman Bergson: And Aristotle...the development of the mind is well described by Piaget..[13:26] herman Bergson: so the dualistic idea about oneself is almost an innate line of thinking...[13:26] herman Bergson: We experience the mind as something different from the body...[13:26] herman Bergson: we don't experience it as being physical[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true[13:27] herman Bergson: that mad e Descartes believe that the mind is a non substantial substance...[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: I hear you, but have to think that the mind is influenced not only through self exploratioin but parents and peers[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: even at a young age[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: that is very true ari[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: hi jozen[13:28] herman Bergson: yes but even then the dualistic view is not necessarily the result of indoctrination in childhood...[13:28] Jozen Ocello: Hi Herman sorry I'm late[13:28] Jozen Ocello: hi Gemma hi everyone[13:28] herman Bergson: it is a logical consequence of how the mind develops[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hi Jozen[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: hi josen[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: I would agree to the development of the mind post birth, yes[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: but I fear I hold strongly to the tabula rasa[13:29] Jozen Ocello accepted your inventory offer.[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:29] herman Bergson: there you are refuted by neurobiological facts Aristotle[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: i don't think so[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: read piaget[13:30] herman Bergson: Kant was right in my opinion[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, someone just needs to convince me otherwise[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: not me[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: so far not enough evidence for me[13:30] herman Bergson: read all reseach done on babies[13:30] herman Bergson: takes out his baseball bat...[13:31] herman Bergson: ok Aristotle...lol[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: :)))[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why there are so many philosophers with different approaches[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: about the same life[13:32] herman Bergson: Ye t I hope to show you that neurobiological evidence shows that we are no clean slate at birth[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: in talking about the mind my daughter reproached me for thinking theer is one[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: at what age[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: she is taking a a neurobiological class and thinks there is on neurons[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: only[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: ah[13:33] herman Bergson: No children prefer to speak of I and me....they hardly use the word mind in conversation[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: she is a senior[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: college[13:33] herman Bergson: then she needs to clarify what she means by MIND[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, I agree LOL[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: she will[13:34] herman Bergson: But is she means that there does not exists more than the body then I would agree with her[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:34] herman Bergson: if[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: but her evidence is research to support her position[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: teh same evidence you have referenced :)[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: same evidence[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: in the next class she will think differently i imagine[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: what ever it is[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: it is funny, the concept of strictly biological reactions[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that neurobiological research will clear a lot of philosophical disputes...[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: I think so too[13:35] Bejiita Imako: yes maybe that[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I asked her where the driver of the car was?[13:36] herman Bergson: for instance the empiricist (Locke - tabula rasa ) view and Kantian rationalist view...[13:36] herman Bergson: Ah......there you go Aristotle...[13:37] herman Bergson: there is the illusion of the mind....[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: and she said?????[13:37] herman Bergson: because your daughter could ask you...who is the driver of the driver?[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, she implied I was not sane in thinking differently LOL[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well you are only her father[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yes Gemma Indeed[13:38] herman Bergson: You still think of the ghost in the machine Aristotle...[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: well, in my trilogy I suppose, the mind is the holy ghost[13:38] herman Bergson: if the ghost controls the machine..ok...but who or what controls the ghost...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:39] herman Bergson: let me rephrase…[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: my ghost apparently has gone rogue[13:39] herman Bergson: I think about myself...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: starts to sound like the classic saying turtles all way down[13:39] herman Bergson: so I am smarter than myself...we are two...[13:40] herman Bergson: But this I, can he think about himself too?...should be..yes[13:40] herman Bergson: the problem here is....and we'll discuss that later[13:40] herman Bergson: that you get in an infinite regress...[13:40] herman Bergson: I think that I think that think that I think...[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:41] herman Bergson: so here the mind mKES short-circuiting [13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: either way it is extremely titelating to think of it[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:41] herman Bergson: oh yes.....[13:42] herman Bergson: I still havent' it figured out myself....[13:42] herman Bergson: But here you see the influence on neurobiology on philosophy...[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: we will be very rich when we do[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: and there is so much discovered every day[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: teh discovery is exponential[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....[13:43] Bejiita Imako: indeed¨[13:43] herman Bergson: When I wrote my thesis on this subject in 1977 neurobiology was hardly mentioned[13:44] herman Bergson: the ideas of materialism were pure philosophical discourse...[13:44] Jozen Ocello: the intersection of the two fields are most interesting indeed[13:44] herman Bergson: but now to say that the brain is the mind and that the brain controls the mind is almost common knowledge in scientific circles[13:45] Caipirisma Laval: we will have prove what happens when they are able to transplant a brain.. i think[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh[13:45] herman Bergson: What pleases me the most is ...that my arguments from 1977 now are corroberated by scientific evidence...[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I am sure[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: i have an idea it will be legally prevented in most countries[13:46] herman Bergson: Well Cai...transplantin a brain was the issue in RObocop...[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: remember the first face transplant???[13:46] Caipirisma Laval: i mean ..not in a movie:))[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: an uproar[13:47] Jozen Ocello: oh yes, that wasn't too long ago was it, Gemma?[13:47] Jozen Ocello: a very good example[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: no[13:47] herman Bergson: What is the question at stake here is...what makes a person to an individual person....that is ..what is personal identity[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: within two years[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: that has been the question[13:47] Caipirisma Laval: true..what happends..with memories..well the patient can tell us at that time..[13:47] herman Bergson: That doesnt matter Cai..whether it is in a movie or in reality...[13:48] Caipirisma Laval: i think it does matter[13:48] herman Bergson: and yes GEmma...a face transplant...and personal identity...huge question[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: but how infintesimal the fulcrum point must be that determines which controls which, brainn or mind[13:49] herman Bergson: Philosophically it isn't that important Cai....[13:49] herman Bergson: it is only the difference between technically thinkable and technically possible...[13:50] herman Bergson: if it is already thinkable, you have to face the philosophical questions..related to th eissue[13:50] Caipirisma Laval: hmm..a brain cant function without the body..and body not without a brain..[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: and then the question arise, can the mind be excised[13:50] herman Bergson: because it was thinkable to fly to the moon ..Jules Verne did so[13:51] herman Bergson: It immediately provoked the question ..where is god and where is heaven[13:51] herman Bergson: when the first russian astronaut was send in to space ..Gagarin....[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: once thought of, all that remains is technology to catch up with the thought[13:52] herman Bergson: the first thing he said was...there is no heaven here...just space[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, he must have have the metaphor of heaven n his mind as being up[13:52] herman Bergson: this is how philosophically thinkable and technically possible relate[13:53] Bejiita Imako: what did he expected to find, little angels on clouds playing harps[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess so yes...[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:53] Caipirisma Laval: if technology change..philosophy change with it[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: some folks cant see the forest for the trees[13:54] Caipirisma Laval: change of view..[13:54] herman Bergson: In fact it is the other way around Cai.....[13:54] Caipirisma Laval: possible to..smiles[13:54] Jozen Ocello: i like what you said, Herman "philosophical thinkable" and "technologically possible"[13:54] herman Bergson: when the scientist comes up with a new idea, new theory....new technology will emerge...[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: true[13:55] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:55] herman Bergson: the scientist is the philosopher who changed his interpretation of nature[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: took awhile for DaVinci :)[13:55] Caipirisma Laval: so it can be visa versa[13:55] Bejiita Imako: I still wait for the LHC to give me hard facts about some stuff however the damn machine only stryggles now[13:56] herman Bergson: yes Cai...first there is the thought...then there is the technology created based on the thought[13:56] Bejiita Imako: dumped now when colliding the beams so have to start over again[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ran fine yesterday at least[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: well[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: thing is so big!!!!!![13:56] Bejiita Imako: many theories to be answered by it[13:56] Bejiita Imako: and i want to know SOON[13:56] Bejiita Imako: curious like hell now[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:57] herman Bergson: I can imagine Bejiita...[13:57] herman Bergson: Must be sensational to get the answer[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: his mind is obsessed with it[13:57] Bejiita Imako: feels we get closer and closer but cant reach all the way now when it behave like this[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: better be soon!!!![13:58] Bejiita Imako: I want it to find some stuff that will rewrite all the schoolbooks[13:58] herman Bergson: I would suggest we all light a candle for Bejiita....^_^[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: just don't let Texas write em[13:58] Bejiita Imako: would be amazing[13:58] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: no[13:58] herman Bergson: We covered a lot of ground today.....[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i will make it thursday[13:59] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:59] herman Bergson: So, time to thank you for your great participation in the debate[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Herman :)[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: see you all soon[13:59] Jozen Ocello: i'll be here on thursday but may be 10-15 mins[13:59] herman Bergson: See you soon again...[13:59] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu then[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^[13:59] Caipirisma Laval: ty professor[13:59] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman:)[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: gotta run, good bye all[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class! see u thursday[14:00] herman Bergson: My Pleasure Beertje[14:00] Bejiita Imako: bye[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [14:00] Caipirisma Laval: yes ..thats me:))[14:00] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma
Where does our supersense, our ability to have supernatural thoughts, come from? If we hold the view that the mind is the brain, supersense must surface somewhere during the development of the brain.I'll skip all research results which are obtained from tests with babies and one year old toddlers. At least so much is clear, that the mind of a baby is certainly not a tabula rasa , a clean slate, but definitely wired to learn about his world efficiently.Jean Piaget (9 August 1896 – 16 September 1980) was a Swiss developmental psychologist known for his epistemological studies with children. His theory of cognitive development and epistemological view are together called "genetic epistemology".He is the man who showed us the answer to our question, based one hundreds of observations, experiments and interviews with children. A so interesting psychologist, however, we have to restrict us to what is important for our understanding of supersense.He discovered that in the age of 2 to 7 years children have very outspoken supernatural ideas. I think you remember that from your own childhood. The sun and the moon were persons. In your drawings they got eyes and a big smile.You knew that there lived little men in the mushrooms. And the tooth fairy gave you a dime for every tooth. In other words things that were not living things were alive for you as a child.We also see this in religions. It is called animism. QUOTE- When we misapply the property of one natural kind to another, we are thinking unnaturally. If we continue to believe it is true, then our thinking has become supernatural. This is where I think our supersense comes from. -END QUOTE , says Bruce Hood.Another typical characteristic of the developing brain in the period of 2 to 7 years old is the teleological approach of the world. Everything in the world has a function or a goal.When you ask a child what a car is, it will answer "that is to drive me to the supermall" or what a stair is "that is to get to my bedroom". These are ways of thinking that get along very well with for instance creationism. The complexity of life MUST have a design and a purposeA last characteristic in that age period is antropomorfism: not living things are treated as human persons: your teddybear, your dolls. To summarize, the origins of supernatural beliefs are within every developing child.Nothing new. Hume (1711 - 1776) already observed this inclination to antropomorfism, also in adults, as he wrote "by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice and good-will to everything, that hurts or pleases us. Hence . . . trees, mountains and streams are personified, and the inanimate parts of nature acquire sentiment and passion.But now comes the most remarkable thing. It is not the supernatural thinking of young children that is so remarkable, but the supernatural beliefs of adults who should know better. With experience and understanding, supernatural thinking should decline in children, but there is a paradoxical increase in supernatural beliefs in some cultures. In societies where belief in the supernatural is the norm, it increasingly plays an explanatory role in adults’ reasoning. This is the effect of environment, and this is where religion wields its influence. [Hood]Thus, theoretically, in this age of science, you would expect that the children's misconceptions about nature would be replaced by the rational ideas of science.And that doesn't happen at all. The explanation for this is that we are not just individuals. The human being is a social animal. And we have seen that sharing the same (supernatural) beliefs works as the social glue, that makes society possible.To conclude, we clearly can see how supersense develops in a child and we also can conclude that our present education only supports or even reinforces it, while growing up.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you...[13:23] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting as Alarice said i didnt look at the early years that way[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...go for it :-)[13:24] herman Bergson: Oh yes Gemma...it is a proven fact..[13:24] Repose Lionheart: Sooo...I guess my pet rock doesn't *really* love me? A hard discipline, Professor ㋡[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: as a sign of supernatural[13:24] Aya Beaumont: If I may... to my thinking, we humans have a need for feeling purpose.[13:24] herman Bergson: Piaget is very interesting...[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: more that the very young child He or SHE is the center of their universe[13:24] herman Bergson: Didt you play with your dolls as were they real people???[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so the stairs is for him or her[13:24] Jozen Ocello: yes, even now :)[13:25] Adriana Jinn: .))))[13:25] herman Bergson: smiles at Jozen[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: oops[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes..sometimes even now...[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: this lasts til about 3+-3[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: 3+ -4 age[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: then begin to see other people as needing stairs also[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: Could it be that a child's mind starts writting on his empty tablet as soon as they are born and utilizes the only references they have to identify the world, in effect the faces and people that have to support their very survival?[13:25] Aya Beaumont: Purpose makes us feel better... and since we can't have that if we know why we have it, purpose has to be sought beyond what we know.[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Gemma..that is past, what Piaget called the egocentricphase[13:26] Aya Beaumont: Thus, purpose becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly[13:26] herman Bergson: @ Aristotle...[13:27] herman Bergson: no..I think there is enough evidence now that the development of undrstanding the world, or the development of language is basically wired into the brain already[13:27] herman Bergson: In that sense I guess Kant was right[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Aya....we desperately need purpose...[13:28] Jozen Ocello: i saw on the news today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11441678[13:28] herman Bergson: that is why we have problems to accept evolution...[13:28] herman Bergson: a process without purpose[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: I believe that it is, but our purpose is only to survive and procreate, biologically speaking[13:29] Aya Beaumont: Exactly. Purpose comforts us, but wouldn't do so as well if we knew why we had a certain purpose.[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: any other purpose is self imposed[13:30] herman Bergson: I guess basically you are right Aristotle...[13:30] Aya Beaumont: The opposite of purpose is anxiety... and religion and other similar systems of thought are strategies for combating anxiety.[13:30] Jozen Ocello: had this conversation with a friend of late... other purpose such as seeking education, or career is self-imposed or rather imposed by societal pressures[13:30] herman Bergson: You don't differ from rabbits in this :-)[13:30] Aya Beaumont: If survival was the purpose, what would a dying person have to live for?[13:30] herman Bergson: I am sorry[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: but it's ok to define one's own purpose[13:31] herman Bergson: My reply got distorted...[13:31] Aya Beaumont: If procreation was the purpose, what would a sterile person have to live for?[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I wold call those goals Jozen, we find our passion in life and pursue it[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: well..lol and what abut the homosexuals?[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: or for that matter some individuals why have no idea or with to procreate\[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: sterility is a defect[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: wish***[13:31] Jozen Ocello: good point, Aristole (about the goals)[13:32] Aya Beaumont: We find out purposes, each and every one of us. There are NO other purposes in an objective manner.[13:32] herman Bergson: HOLD ON....![13:32] Repose Lionheart: clearly, then, purpose is complex[13:32] herman Bergson: HOLD ON[13:32] herman Bergson: My chat was distorted...[13:32] herman Bergson: but what I said was..[13:32] Bejiita Imako: I want to be happy and have fun with others and be generally useful, thats my purpose i think really useful[13:33] herman Bergson: that Aristotle might be basically right..[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: I agree with your objective statement, Aya[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: objective in personal decision[13:33] Aya Beaumont: What objective purposes do you see then?[13:33] herman Bergson: refering to sterility or homosexuality....(happens in a lot of species) isnt relevant[13:33] Aya Beaumont: Choosing not to have children?[13:33] herman Bergson: because you make then the exception the rule...[13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: the base animal we are serts our purpose, the rest are accessories[13:34] herman Bergson: Choosing not to have children is quite another story Aya....THAT is culture...not biology[13:35] Repose Lionheart: or perhaps it shows the inadequacy of your rule due to it's non-inclusive limitation[13:35] Aya Beaumont: But nevertheless, it is a denial of our purpose. Can we do that?[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: but who says that we are here to live and procreate? Might be just a wrong conclusion[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: we can rationalize and decide to go against our base nature[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: just think of the hitchhikers guide ^^[13:35] herman Bergson: Wel...[13:35] Aya Beaumont: Much better to say that procreation is not necessarily an objective purpose.[13:36] Repose Lionheart: base nature? you so sure you know what that is?[13:36] herman Bergson: Biologically we me want to procreate...[13:36] Aya Beaumont: Most of us do.[13:36] Repose Lionheart: not necessarily from and evolutionary perspective[13:36] herman Bergson: but different from animals ..our brian produces more ....a mind[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully suspect we are animals at our base[13:36] Repose Lionheart: so?[13:37] herman Bergson: we are Aristotle..98% genetically chimp[13:37] Repose Lionheart: animals are complex individually and in their groups[13:37] Repose Lionheart: and social purpose and individual purpose blend in an evolutionary biological perspective[13:37] herman Bergson: yes..but our problem is that our brian produces a MIND...[13:38] herman Bergson: so..[13:38] Jozen Ocello: is that what that differs us from other animals?[13:38] herman Bergson: we have to deal with that mind[13:38] Aya Beaumont: It is my firm belief that our cultural norms are very much a reflection of our biologic norms.[13:38] Jozen Ocello: or one of the differences so to say?[13:38] herman Bergson: and its consequences[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: I think they are in spite of our biological norms[13:39] Aya Beaumont: It doesn't answer the question, saying that something is cultural. Why did culture end up that way?[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Jozen..the mind differs us from animals...[13:39] Repose Lionheart: but out knowledge of our "biological norms" is VERY uncertain, and shot through with inappropriate assumptions carried over from our social norms[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: we attempt to control those biological urges[13:39] Repose Lionheart: you think you know more than you do[13:39] Aya Beaumont: Of course.[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:39] herman Bergson: We live in time...an animal lives in the moment[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: well the more i know the more I know how much I don't know[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: I believe I knew nothing when I was born, hence any supersense has to be nurtured[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: yes Gemma ^^[13:40] herman Bergson: And there you are mistaken Aristotle[13:40] Aya Beaumont: As interesting as this is, my original point was: We become religious to fight our anxiety.[13:41] herman Bergson: Parts of the brain generate supersense...[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, which parts?[13:41] Aya Beaumont: And most humans find stroking this supersense works wonders to stave off uncertainty.[13:41] Aya Beaumont: Right temporal lobe, apparently.[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: ahhhh cerebral development[13:42] herman Bergson: Aya...it already is discovered that we are genetically prepared to be religious or not[13:42] Aya Beaumont: Indeed.[13:42] Aya Beaumont: Some 25% are.[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: because of what, I wonder?[13:42] herman Bergson: By stimulating parts of the brain people have religious ecperiences[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: 25% are predisposed to be religious?[13:43] herman Bergson: As I already said before...[13:43] Aya Beaumont: However, the vast majority have feelings like that when seeing natural vistas, meeting animals, reading poetry, or the like.[13:43] herman Bergson: Supersense is part of our survival strategy...[13:43] Aya Beaumont: Feelings of being part of something greater, of purpose.[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: I doubt they are stimulating the brain stem and getting those results[13:44] herman Bergson: yes as I said to...[13:44] herman Bergson: the human is a social animal....wants to belong to the group[13:44] herman Bergson: They do Aristotle..[13:44] Alarice Beaumont: herd instinct[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice...[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: not only belong. but moves with it[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, but that collective gathering can be overcome by confident, stonrg minds[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: I'm not sure about that.. you are then just looking for another group[13:45] herman Bergson: You are on the rationalist tour Aristotle...and humans are not rationalbeings ^_^[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:46] herman Bergson: We try to..[13:46] Aya Beaumont: SOME humans are. =)[13:46] herman Bergson: We do our best...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: some try to be[13:46] Jozen Ocello: :)[13:46] Jozen Ocello: on occasions[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, out best....some have better stuff that others[13:46] herman Bergson: Indeed[13:46] Jozen Ocello: it's good to be irrational at times :)[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: lol[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] herman Bergson: Rationality is just a part of our being....[13:47] Aya Beaumont: I should bring up another issue here...[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: but it is waht defines us a humans I think[13:47] Aya Beaumont: I did some reading on deep meditation... you know, the "one with evrything" stuff.[13:47] herman Bergson: But the idea that the human being is a rationwttyyyyyyyy l being is utter nonsense :-)[13:48] herman Bergson: rational[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: because the primal instincts remain strong[13:48] Aya Beaumont: If you look at someone doing that in fMRI, you can find that they effectively shut down blood supply to various brain areas.[13:48] herman Bergson: OK...Let's be sharp here...[13:48] herman Bergson: Rationality means....only ruled by the outcome of scientific findings[13:49] Aya Beaumont: If you do that to the areas dealing with your relation to the outside world, you experience what they generally describe as astral traveling.[13:49] Bejiita Imako: following facrt[13:49] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm.. i would say think before doing something...no?[13:49] Bejiita Imako: facrt[13:49] Bejiita Imako: what is the actual truth[13:49] herman Bergson: Ye sindeed Aya...[13:50] herman Bergson: Well Bejiita...[13:50] Bejiita Imako: think first do later yes[13:50] Bejiita Imako: not opposite around[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:50] Aya Beaumont: And if it's the areas dealing with one's self and consciousness, you do feel like "one with everything". Our selves are defined by what is NOT us.[13:50] herman Bergson: I think tha actual truth is[13:50] herman Bergson: that we are a funny bunch of creatures...[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: ^^[13:51] herman Bergson: So ..you funny people..[13:51] Jozen Ocello: hehe[13:51] Aya Beaumont: Rationality is when you can justify your feelings through sensible motivations. =)[13:51] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] herman Bergson: We are not done...[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:51] herman Bergson: still a long road ahead[13:51] Jozen Ocello: thanks Professor :)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: nice as usual[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:51] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: for now[13:52] Aya Beaumont: Thank you. =)[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Professor :)[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: yes very long lool... but fun...[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Aya..interesting point[13:52] Rodney Handrick: good presentation[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: Thank you Herman[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all...[13:52] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks herman! that was interesting! thanks you all :-)) see you next week[13:52] herman Bergson: You are a funny bunch..^_^[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: they are funny Herman[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: not rationally spoken[13:52] herman Bergson: I hope I was funny too...lol[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: ^^[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:53] herman Bergson: great class...thnx[13:53] herman Bergson: see you onTuesday![13:53] Josiane Llewellyn: Thank you Professor[13:53] Jozen Ocello: thanks look forward to next Tuesday[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu then[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: great. ... see you then[13:53] Sartre Placebo: thx everyone[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: bye everyone :-)
