skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To be called a materialist with respect to your metaphysical interpretation of reality has been like a curse for many centuries.Of course this finds its roots in the fact that materialism was regarded almost synonymous with atheism. You see the same happen with regard to the concept of matter itself.I am not sure, whether there is a relation with that other meaning of the word "materialist", meaning "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.", according to the online Oxford Dictionary.It looks like there is a connection in the fact that theistic or spiritual values are not much supported by materialism.But as I said in the previous lecture, materialism has made considerable progress over the past century, particularly among educated European peoples.There seem to be a few reasons for this development. One reason is, that there has been a decline in those aspects of religious conviction that involve appeal to providential or satanic interventions in the course of events.This is due to the fact that many have lost the belief in an intervening god or devil in this world. Earthquakes, climate change or pestilence, for example, are not attributed to nonmaterial, supernatural forces.Another reason we already have discussed extensively, which you could call "biological materialism": the discovery of the biochemical mechanisms involved in neural functioning, and their links to psychological processes, so that it is now taken for granted that thinking, feeling, and the will are subserved by the nervous system, and can be altered by making physical changes by the use of drugs or electrodes.Again another reason, which you could call "medical materialism": diseases are not caused by a punishing god, witchcraft, curses and the like, but by viruses and bacteria.We have developed a strong belief in the possibilities of medicine. Every illness can be cured and if this is not yet the case, we believe that medical research eventually will find a material cure.Sometimes I get the feeling, that this medical materialism has replaced the religious beliefs. We get strongly imprinted that our health is the ultimate good on earth, almost meaning "When you are healthy, you are happy!"And this is all based on a materialist and mechanistic concept of health. When the body(machine) is properly maintained all will be well. Thus jogging has become the contemporary way of praying ( ^_*)A final reason can be that recent years have witnessed an astonishing expansion in the range and sophistication of the mental tasks that digital machines can perform. Not only remembering, recalling, and calculating, but pattern recognition, estimation processes, problem solving, and learning new skills, skills, which hitherto have been the exclusive preserve of living, conscious beings, are now routinely performed by electronic devices that, unless panpsychism is true, are purely physical structures.This has lead to an increasingly common assumption that mental activity is a special kind of physical process, which even suggests the question "Will a computer eventually become conscious?"Of course materialism is not THE ontological answer, but it offers a comprehensive, unified account of the nature of reality that is economical, intelligible, and consistent with the most successful of the sciences.The Discussion[13:16] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:17] herman Bergson: Allow a 2 minutes break so that Soussine and Carmela can read the notecard/text of this lecture before we start our discussion...[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:17] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:17] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you =)[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: TY[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm good[13:18] herman Bergson: ok..[13:18] herman Bergson smiles[13:18] Sousinne Ceriano: done[13:18] herman Bergson: The floor is yours then....[13:18] Bejiita Imako: Even if a computer gets more and more advanced i don't think it can ever be conscious[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: / what's to prevent a conscious computeR?[13:19] Bejiita Imako: cause all a computer does do by calculating binary numbers[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: and all we do is by chemical reactions...so?[13:19] Doodus Moose: yes - we'd need a whole different architecture[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: If it can't, Bejiita, how can we be conscious?[13:19] Bejiita Imako: thus see only 1 and 0 surent and no current[13:19] herman Bergson: We will get to that subject Bejiita when we discuss the chinese Room argument of John Searle..[13:19] herman Bergson: He is at your side[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): computer can all do what humans can do[13:20] Mick Nerido: The study of the material world is becoming more metaphycial like with Dark matter and dark energy[13:20] Doodus Moose: Chinese Room - consider also the Turing Test[13:20] druth Vlodovic: if pure materialism is true then we aren't really conscious[13:20] Carmela Sandalwood: why not? consciousness is simply an awareness of surroundings[13:20] Sousinne Ceriano: druth: That won't be true until you can say we understand the nature of consciousness.[13:20] Bejiita Imako: t when this happens millions of times per second that the computer can create everything almost but yet its just binary math at very high speed done by billions of switches[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can chinese room only, they haven't a consciousness[13:21] Carmela Sandalwood: well, humans do it with millions of neural connections...so?[13:21] herman Bergson: Let me give you John Searle's arguments about consciousness again[13:21] Doodus Moose: neural connections self -program[13:21] Mick Nerido: If materialism is true than atoms could be conscious[13:21] herman Bergson: I think it is the best answer to the mind body problem so far...[13:22] herman Bergson: No no Mick...not that fast[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ut ht is some kind of chemical process and we have receptors for that, but for a computer that would mean that you had to do complete new way of constructing them i think[13:22] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced the Chinese room doesn't understand Chinese[13:22] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): john searle is irrelevant[13:22] Mick Nerido: well have the potential for it built in[13:22] herman Bergson: Ok....plz..listen.....[13:22] Bejiita Imako: so that it can indeed feel something[13:22] herman Bergson: Plz...a moment of silence...![13:22] Bejiita Imako: and also computers need to do it by math while we interpret it directly[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sound pictures ect[13:23] herman Bergson: How to understand the relation between consciousness and matter....[13:23] herman Bergson: Take a glass of water....[13:23] herman Bergson: the water is liquid….[13:23] herman Bergson: Liquidity is a property of that water....[13:24] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans cant understand substainable[13:24] herman Bergson: but we can not seperate the liquidity as something on its own from the water[13:24] herman Bergson: it means...[13:24] Carmela Sandalwood: liquidity is a type of interaction of the molecules in the water[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: "sustainable" means "unchanging". What a magnificent world where stasis is seen as the highest goal for all humanity.[13:25] herman Bergson: the h2o molecules create that state by being in a certain state...[13:25] herman Bergson: so..liquidity is caused by these h2o molecules....[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes by moving around and binding in between those for ice and steam[13:25] Carmela Sandalwood: its the interaction, not the molecules themselves[13:25] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): incorrect sous[13:26] Sousinne Ceriano: Right, Kraftwerk.[13:26] herman Bergson: but we can not pick out a h2o molecule and say..look this is a liquid one...[13:26] Bejiita Imako: slow movement = ice fast movement steam[13:26] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans are so annoying[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and alson the molecule mmovement is same as heat[13:26] Carmela Sandalwood: not quite Bejiita[13:26] herman Bergson: thus the brain operates too....[13:26] Mick Nerido: water = liquid as brain = consciousness?[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I completely agree with you there, Kraftwerk. =)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: meaning for ex that microwave energy is converted directly into heat when interacting with water in the food[13:27] herman Bergson: the material processes in the brain cause consciousness[13:27] Bejiita Imako: its not friction cause the actual molecule vibrations are the heat[13:27] herman Bergson: save us the details Bejiita :-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:27] Bejiita Imako: thats how it is[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I read a brilliant book some time ago... "I am a strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter.[13:27] herman Bergson: So the brain causes consciousness...[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: But the question is *how* the brain causes consciousness[13:28] herman Bergson: Like h20 molecules cause liquidity[13:28] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is an esoteric concept of our anthropozentric religion[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: His view was that consciousness is a product of self-reference.[13:28] herman Bergson: the how question is just a scientific question...[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it bothers me to say the H2O molecules 'cause' liquidity...[13:28] herman Bergson: we have our neurobiology and physics and thus can find out[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it's a strange use of the word 'cause'[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: I am inclined to agree with him. The way to make a "stale" system of thought is to banish self-reference.[13:29] herman Bergson: Ahhh Carmela…[13:29] herman Bergson: That is really a good point.....[13:29] druth Vlodovic: sci-fi authors pard the term down to "self-aware" machines a long time ago[13:29] Bejiita Imako: the speed of movement causes the liquidity, the value of it[13:29] Mick Nerido: consciousness is purely a material process not spiritual[13:29] herman Bergson: Since Hume we have a peculiar idea of causality...[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: Once you accept it, the system grows in ways we don't have good words to explain.[13:29] herman Bergson: billiard ball causality I call it[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: the speed and the degree of interaction is what is associated with the macro-scopic state of liquidity[13:30] herman Bergson: you have event/object A that causes event/object B[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: Hume was better than Aristotle on causality[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: But from the earliest moments, every human is faced with an environment containing a very special object: themselves.[13:30] herman Bergson: Two seperate events...[13:30] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans act like billiard, but they dont can realised it by itself[13:30] herman Bergson: but that is a very narrow idea of causality....[13:31] Carmela Sandalwood: right…liquidity and the molecules are not separate things[13:31] herman Bergson: on the one hand you have H2O molecules...[13:31] herman Bergson: on the other hand you have liquidity...[13:32] herman Bergson: That is aristotelian thinking...but nonsense if you regard liquidity ontologically as a separate entity or property[13:32] herman Bergson: Liquidity exists ONLY if H2O molecules are in a certain condition[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, what defines liquidity? Preservation of volume, ability to flow, etc[13:32] herman Bergson: The mind exists only...when there is a brain[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: A number of different chemicals can have liquid states...at various temperatures and pressures[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...only variations on the theme[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: So the question is whether a silicon structure can 'cause' a mind also[13:33] herman Bergson: But there is one philosophically important issue here[13:34] druth Vlodovic: I think the point is that "consciousness" is an effect, not a thing in it's own right[13:34] herman Bergson: saying that the brain causes the mind...[13:34] herman Bergson: or consciousness...[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: If the silicon can do the same things, it will be just as conscious.[13:34] herman Bergson: doesnt tell us a thing about WHAT consciousness is...[13:34] Carmela Sandalwood: Right, but if we could get another example of the phenomenon, we would have an easier time defining it :)[13:35] herman Bergson: Sillicon can't do the job Sousinne...[13:35] druth Vlodovic: maybe a better question is if computers can eventually make their own choices[13:35] druth Vlodovic: though many people don't think that people can,[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: why not herman?[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?[13:35] herman Bergson: Searle pointed that out pretty clearly in his Chinese room Argument....google for it :-)[13:35] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): silicon can do it far better[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: And I disagree with Searle on that[13:36] Doodus Moose: Sous - assuming consciousness is synapse-based, silicon junctions can't do the sam ething[13:36] herman Bergson: Computers are symbol shuffling machines...[13:36] herman Bergson: our mind isnt....[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?[13:36] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): chinese room is antropzentric nonsense[13:36] herman Bergson: Our mind adds semantics to the symbols...[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goodevening[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, one difficulty is that we are thinking of computers as non-interactive....look more at the advances of robots lately...much closer to what is required[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: Whatever consciousness is, it is a product of shuffled information.[13:36] druth Vlodovic: what the heck is an anthropzen?[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes made of silicon but its not the silicon itself, its the dopant substrate that conduct current and performs binary math[13:37] herman Bergson: I think you have to come up with a better counter argument Kleine[13:37] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): google it with the right spelling ^^[13:37] Bejiita Imako: just raw number crunching nothing conscious there[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: how do you know Bejiita?[13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: And for us: just raw chemical shuffling, nothing conscious there?[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: efine what it means to be conscious first...then we can see if computers qualify[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I know the basics behind cpus and know how they are made and works[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: so do I...and I also know the basics for neurons[13:38] herman Bergson: I don't agree Sousinne....[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Who said anything about a computer?[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: I said a silicon structure.[13:38] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans do only crude statistic operation in his little neuronal network.[13:38] herman Bergson: Our chemical shufflling in the brain causes consciousness[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: we are carbon based structures with some water, and a few other chemicals[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, professor, BECAUSE information gets spread in certain patterns.[13:39] Carmela Sandalwood: and why can't that chemical shuffling be mimicked by computers?[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Carmela....and with some remarkable features[13:39] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): its not a question by the materials at first, they don't understand it[13:39] herman Bergson: consciousness is one of the features our our material construction :-)[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: just like other chemicals can be liquid, why can't other structures support consciousness?[13:40] Doodus Moose: bingo[13:40] Bejiita Imako: something cause conscious ness yes and its electrical signals so in someway might be possible but i have a hart time to see how todays construction of a computer can be because the e way they work[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Unless you mean to say that there are certain chemicals that cause consciousness, you are going to have to deal with the idea that all our brains do is shuffle information[13:40] Bejiita Imako: just switching current on and off like a light switch[13:40] Mick Nerido: Why is there consciousness at all?[13:40] herman Bergson: Good question Carmela...but a scientific one...[13:40] herman Bergson: not a philosophical one...[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: agreed....but as a philosophical question, is there a barrier?[13:40] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is a other believe system like human god believe sytsem[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: No... it is not about belief.[13:41] herman Bergson: Why is there consciousness at all.....? Not a meaningful question in my opinion[13:41] druth Vlodovic: the chinese room argument seems to be saying that computers can't be conscious because their hardware can't have understanding[13:41] herman Bergson: Then you also can ask...Whey are there trees at all?[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: Consciousness is a subjective experience, not any sort of system of thought[13:41] druth Vlodovic: but isn't understanding a software problem?[13:41] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness exists because information processing makes it more likely that living things will reproduce[13:42] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): our consciousness is dead like our god. think monkeys![13:42] herman Bergson: no druth...it is a matter of semantics...[13:42] herman Bergson: computers aren't able to add meaning to the symbols they shuffle..[13:42] herman Bergson: our mind does that[13:42] Doodus Moose: nor respond to them emotionally[13:42] Carmela Sandalwood: that i am not so convinced about...what is meaning in this context?[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: emotionally is just another form of information processing[13:43] Bejiita Imako: no they arent a computer can not understand what it does[13:43] herman Bergson: That is why translation programs are so clumsy...like google translate for instance[13:43] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans don't know the meaning of its own acting. thats why the will die out next time[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: ever talked to a three year old? all sorts of grammatical mistakes[13:43] Bejiita Imako: what the program i wrote really does it cant see that it is a game second life or whatever[13:44] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): if you dont like our programs don't use them ;-P[13:44] Bejiita Imako: it just switches its current on and off in different binary patterns[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: but own language you do no longer understand carmela ;)[13:44] druth Vlodovic: but computer programs are asked to act upon the symbols, when they are given instructions, so the meaning of an abstract symbol becomes, say, movement[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: If it had consciousness, maybe it would, Bejiita.[13:44] Carmela Sandalwood: none of my neurons understands english...but the whole structure of my brain does[13:45] Mick Nerido: At what point is life conscious?[13:45] herman Bergson: the action on symbols is applying rules Druth[13:45] Sousinne Ceriano: Maybe meaning, emotions, all those things we see as being human, maybe they all require consciousness?[13:45] Bejiita Imako: maybe but that would require a completely different way of constructing a cpu than just millions of on and off switches[13:45] druth Vlodovic: to humans meaning is a matter of "what do I do with this?" or "How does this mesh with previously accumulated meanings?"[13:45] Carmela Sandalwood: Bejiita: I think that main difference is we need more interaction of the silicon structures with the 'real world'[13:45] herman Bergson: Of course Sousinne...![13:45] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans aren't a real life form[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes something like that[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and also as said computers need to take the way over mathematics while we can interpret directly[13:46] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness comes from interaction with an environment, using the information collected by the senses[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: And thus, you need to solve the issue of consciousness BEFORE you tap into emotions and meaning... it also means neither is necessary for consciousness.[13:46] Doodus Moose: so, my hamster is conscious?[13:46] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): :)[13:47] herman Bergson: To some extend yes Doodus[13:47] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): hamsters and humans haven't a consciousness[13:47] Carmela Sandalwood: where do we put the line for consciousness? bacteria? lizards?[13:47] herman Bergson: It will be conscious of pain when you torture it[13:47] Doodus Moose: +when+[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: not if[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: =)[13:47] herman Bergson: It will not have the ability to say to you "I am in pain"[13:47] druth Vlodovic: my car is "conscious" of a low oil condition[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: and bacteria move away from noxious stimuli[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: No... your car is nothing of the sort.[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: with micro-computers in cars, it might be[13:48] druth Vlodovic: it can react to it, by lighting a warning light[13:48] herman Bergson: Your car is a 100% causally operation mechanism Druth[13:48] Doodus Moose: ...but that's not consciousness[13:48] Bejiita Imako: if not the oil level just trigs a switch connected to a computer programmed to send current to 2 leads leading to a warning light, those 2 lights could be connected to whatever[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: Whether machines will be capable of being conscious or not, they are not currently able to be conscious.[13:49] Carmela Sandalwood: and I do tend to agree the car is not conscious...but the term is ambiguous[13:49] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Souisinne - how would we know?[13:49] herman Bergson: Welll Doodus..that is the whole point regarding animal rights...[13:49] druth Vlodovic: if I burn my hand I'll retract it, in fact, it would take conscious interference to avoid doing so[13:49] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that animals were just plain machines...no mind at all[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: Lolli: Enough analysis and we will know EVERY signal there is in the car's electrical system.[13:50] herman Bergson: We now know that animals can experience stress and fear....[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: It is eminently predictable and not one bit of it will generate any sort of consciousness.[13:50] herman Bergson: Even have emotions![13:50] Carmela Sandalwood: experience....[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: A nut is not conscious because I throw a rock at it to make it fall down from a branch[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: ok, how do we know they experience anxiety? or emotions?[13:51] herman Bergson: Soem animales even have a self conscious...recognize themselves in a mirror[13:51] Bejiita Imako: an interesting thing is plants[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: Measurements of stress hormones[13:51] Bejiita Imako: are they conscious[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No.[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: so if a computer shows the signs of emotions and stress, is it conscious?[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: They don't even have any sort of nervous system.[13:51] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but can they think or have a mind[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No[13:51] herman Bergson: no Bejiita...stop that ...:-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: no because unlike us they are just a bunch of independent cells with no brain[13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: If a computer shows signs of stress, get a new one before it breaks down. =)[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: not independent...plants are 8very* interconnected[13:52] herman Bergson: Plants can interact with their environment..yes...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: in some way it seems indeed[13:52] herman Bergson: respond to a nice rain or suffer under a hot sun...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cause as said[13:52] Bejiita Imako: they are alive[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: how about a robot that has been programmed to work in an environment? if it shows stress, is it conscious?[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a whole different matter...[13:53] Mick Nerido: Any complex enough brain can be conscious because the atoms and molecules have the potential to behave that way[13:53] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can't interact with there environment[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: A robot would need to be self-referential for that to happen.[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: It would need to relate to ITSELF.[13:53] Carmela Sandalwood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes mick..therefore some animales can be attributed consciousness....even self awareness[13:54] Carmela Sandalwood: Big Dog: conscious or not?[13:54] druth Vlodovic: I wonder if the term "conscious" isn't obfuscating[13:54] Sousinne Ceriano: Showing a mimicked symptom of stress doesn't help[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok Druth....I know.....:-)[13:54] herman Bergson: We'll deal with is in coming lectures in detail ^_^[13:54] Bejiita Imako: the stress in the robot is stull just programmed math[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and is *our* stress just un-programmed math?[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: Until such a time as the robot can consider its own situation.[13:55] herman Bergson: No Carmela...a robot never shows stress...[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and they do now....they work with information to adjust their behavior[13:55] Mick Nerido: A robot could be made of carbon and be organic like people[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: And not just seeing its environment[13:55] Bejiita Imako: we feel directly without calculating numbers, a machine cant do that at least not yet[13:55] herman Bergson: its program shuffles symbols according to given rules...[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: herman: I disgaree.....look at the video of Big Dog being pushed over....[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: or being on an icy road[13:56] Sousinne Ceriano: We feel because billions of neurons toggle chemicals on or off.[13:56] herman Bergson: so it may simulate behavior we would call stres sbehavior[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: is that Descartes argument against animals?[13:56] herman Bergson: It is programmed to respond like that[13:56] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): nobody need the humans species on that planet[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:57] herman Bergson: We could discuss the need of your presence here Mr. Kleine..:-)))[13:57] druth Vlodovic: so you can be considered "conscious" if you can do things you are not programmed for?[13:57] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): smiles at herman :))[13:57] Carmela Sandalwood: modern robots respond 'creatively' to new situations[13:57] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES i know human fascism well[13:58] Bejiita Imako: yes and can interact with directly and not just go through numbers[13:58] herman Bergson: ok ok..hold on...[13:58] Bejiita Imako: we hear sound see pictures and so a machine se just 1001001101010101010101[13:58] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced our neurons don't just 'go through the numbers'[13:58] herman Bergson: Is my computer conscious ...willl be one of the subjects of coming lectures[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: the question is how they get the numbers they go through Carmela[13:59] Carmela Sandalwood: through their sensory inputs...just like us[13:59] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): you will only not see the conscious of a computer or other species cause its different to human conscious[13:59] herman Bergson: We cant deal with all such complex questions and observations with just a few general remarks or arguments[13:59] herman Bergson: so..patience plz....[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: the sensoric will have to be programmed too Carmela[14:00] herman Bergson: Today I only gave you some reasons why materialism has become a widely accepted ontology[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: and ours is pre-programmed by genetics[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: but we program the computers carmela[14:00] Doodus Moose: i'm always suspicious of things that make too much sense[14:00] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): ciska computer programs tier sensorik by learning it self today[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: so we need genetic robots?[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: after patterns we gave them kraftwerk[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: we predefine[14:01] herman Bergson: Well...Thank you all for this very good discussion....[14:01] Carmela Sandalwood: thank you herman[14:01] herman Bergson: feel free to continue...[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[14:01] herman Bergson: but ...[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you all[14:01] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: great class :)[14:01] Bejiita Imako: VERY[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: :9[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:01] herman Bergson: Hey CONNIE[14:01] Mick Nerido: Nice class[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: hi :)[14:02] herman Bergson: didnt see you come in!!!![14:02] CONNIE Eichel: :)[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman- bye all[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ok cu ㋡[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: i stayed in silence :)[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: thanks[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: :)[14:02] Carmela Sandalwood: what happens if we replace every neuron in our system by a silicon module that does the same thing?[14:02] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): human philosophy sound like moo moo[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:03] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Thank you herman.[14:03] Doodus Moose: Carmela - two _totally_ different architectures[14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: <--definitely a materialist[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: well, till next class, jazz time fo me :)[14:03] herman Bergson: Then you should not attend this class Mr.Kleine[14:03] Sousinne Ceriano: Carmela: Yay![14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: so? why is that relevant doodus?[14:03] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES humans never learned by other species.[14:04] Doodus Moose: neurons can "learn" by connecting in various patterns. silicon is 'fused' into non-changeable patterns[14:04] herman Bergson: Envy you CONNIE![14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: if the reactions are the same, will the new construct be conscious?[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: :)[14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: it is possible to modify things so that the strength of the connection changes over time...[14:04] Sousinne Ceriano: Doodus: She said that it would work the SAME way.[14:04] Bejiita Imako: aFPGA circuit can be programmed to change its internal structure but still olny programming[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: kisses you all :)[14:04] Doodus Moose: ..but by architecture , it can't (yet)[14:04] herman Bergson: Yeah!!![14:04] herman Bergson: :-)[14:05] Doodus Moose: :-)[14:05] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): even rats will survies the homo sapiens. rats adaped to radioactivity and global warming[14:05] Bejiita Imako: ok need to head on[14:05] Carmela Sandalwood: TC Bejiita[14:05] druth Vlodovic: we need to start cross-breeding with rats immediately[14:05] herman Bergson: That is a triviality Mr. Kleine[14:05] Sousinne Ceriano: One good thought experiment: If you could teleport somewhere, by making a copy and destroying the original, would you want to go?[14:05] Bejiita Imako: time to scare the neighbours unconcious with a little Qwark Psy[14:05] Bejiita Imako: lol[14:06] Doodus Moose: llIInduceLobotomy(key, status);[14:06] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again ㋡
Before digging into Dualism I have to deal with a question that came up in the discussion after my previous lecture. It boiled down to the question how a subjective mind / consciousness can obtain objective knowledge about the mind, because, isn't that a subjective something?let me begin with quoting John Searle: "Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity.Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objectivescience of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms."This may sound a bit complicated and I'll not explain it all in detail, but what is important in this matter is our common way of thinking in the dichotomy objective - subjective.Many philosophers and scientists think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness. For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.This is not correct and I'll show you why. As knowledge science is objective indeed. That means, a scientist can find the truth of a statement, which is independent of the observer."Herman Bergson is in RL 1.78m tall" and "Herman Bergson is a good philosopher". The first statement is objective knowledge. Anyone can put it to the test and proof the correctness.The second statement is subjective. There is no way of settling the truth or falsehood of it. I hope, you find at least one person who'd like to say "yes, that is true". Others may have reasons to say "That statement is false."We may call this epistemic objectivity and epistemic subjectivity, but we have to make another subjective - objective distinction.Pains and tickles, for example, have a subjective mode of existence. Nobody else can feel my headache, but me myself.But mountains, cars and houses have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence doesn't depend on any consciousness.Because this is about things and how they exist, we can call it the distinction between ontological objectivity and ontological subjectivity.Thence you can conclude, that it is very well possible to have objective knowledge (the epistemic level) of what exists only as my subjective mental states (the ontological level).Or to say it in Searle words:"There is no reason whatever why we cannot have an objective science of pain, even though pains only exist when they are felt by conscious agents. The ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain." In other words, science is by definition objective in the epistemological sense and consciousness is by definition subjective in the ontological sense and for that reason it is completely normal that there is scientific knowledge possible about consciousness.What I wanted to make clear is, that in the debate we must keep a sharp eye on the questions: "Is this statement objective / subjective knowledge?"and "is the existence of this fact depending on consciousness or independent of consciousness". This is the distinction between epistemic and ontological objectivity / subjectivity.I am sorry I had to put you through this rather technical philosophical stuff, but it is an important argument regarding possibility of a the science of consciousness.The Discussion[13:27] herman Bergson: this much about the ontological and epistemological objectivity...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: my skin has also epistemic history...but..it doesnt tell me..[13:28] herman Bergson: A bit philosophical hitech maybe...:-)[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and my bones..dont talk to me about their ontologic background also[13:28] Kyra Neutron: :O)[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..sure would be interesting to talk about your skin..later:9[13:28] Kyra Neutron: i just wanted to ask...[13:28] herman Bergson: of course not Kyra...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: who defines[13:28] Kyra Neutron: objective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and[13:28] Kyra Neutron: subjective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:29] herman Bergson: Because these are features of consciousness...and your bones as such aren't conscious[13:29] herman Bergson: Who defines objective and subjective...[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...quite simple...we do...not my cat for instance...[13:30] herman Bergson: It is rules we define to tell what is knowledge and what is not[13:30] Kyra Neutron: not knowledge[13:30] Kyra Neutron: object and subject..[13:30] herman Bergson waves at Elia[13:30] Elia Scribe: Hi Herman!![13:30] Kyra Neutron: is defined..by.."you"[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what is you?[13:31] herman Bergson: no no...not subject and object....has nothing to do with this[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you are an subjective thing[13:31] herman Bergson: no no....[13:31] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:31] herman Bergson: these definitions are intersubjective...[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we see through eyes..are[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we hear[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we can think[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you ..me..him..[13:32] Kyra Neutron: are totally subjective[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she is right in one way but[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemological objective means that any one can establish the truth or falsity of a statement[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she ignores the fact that she says "we"[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I see, hear, the same - now it is objective[13:32] Kyra Neutron: throws the shoe at baldur...[13:32] Kyra Neutron: i has to say it otherwise..you don't listen[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra...[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sticks out tongue[13:33] Mick Nerido: Without an observer is an event real?[13:33] herman Bergson: ontologically is subjective all what I hear you say ....MY hearing only....[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: objective is a result of common agreement -for example of the meaning of a word ..that is -becomes independent of the individual idea[13:33] herman Bergson: But the meaning of what you say...the epistemological content is NOT subjective...[13:34] Kyra Neutron: how can you define it?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: you are "subjective" ?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:34] herman Bergson: I can repeat to someone else literally what you said and ask..is that true or false..[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: smile..we are social and communication dependent animals:9[13:35] Kyra Neutron: damit..you cant even prove that you exist :/[13:35] herman Bergson: If I hear you say "I have seen a martian"...ontologically it is subjective...[13:35] Doodus Moose: is just glad he's not being tested on this :-)[13:35] Kyra Neutron: or we...[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: if i pinch your ass you know you exist[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I can bite you and then you feel that I exist[13:35] Kyra Neutron: if i have "the" ass...[13:35] herman Bergson: But epistemologically I can put it to the test...[13:35] Evie1: glad it was not punch[13:36] Kyra Neutron: no..that only proves..i am dreaming all of "you"[13:36] Kyra Neutron: all the universe[13:36] herman Bergson: I can ask you to show me evidence...which is independent of the observer...[13:36] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:36] Kyra Neutron: and ...oh my...god gene...?[13:36] Kyra Neutron: nooooooo[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: smile ok if you are just immaterial you won't feelyour ass pinched..[13:36] Kyra Neutron: it is the god itself ![13:36] Kyra Neutron: haha ok ok..sorry herman[13:37] herman Bergson: Baldur..leave her ass alone..not in my class ! :-)[13:37] Mick Nerido: Her point of view is entirely subjective....nothing exists if Kyra doesn't[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: sorry but she does have a NICE ONE:9[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll get to that...sollipsime[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes...and as all of you...[13:37] herman Bergson: a logic consequence of the Cartesian view[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nothing exist..if you don't…[13:38] Kyra Neutron: so..next time..telling about "objective" remember it ;9[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: i thought todays class was about the "i"?[13:38] herman Bergson: nothing exist..if you don't…..this statement Kyra...[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry i must go[13:38] Elia Scribe: Kyra, this is at least in part an answer to your question: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Werner Karl Heisenberg[13:38] Mick Nerido: I think the world was here before me and will be here after I am gone[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty! herman & class - see u soon :-)[13:38] Kyra Neutron: mick[13:39] herman Bergson: IS just epistemic...not ontological...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: have you seen..world[13:39] Kyra Neutron: before "you"[13:39] Kyra Neutron: me didnt[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and i wont see world after me[13:39] Kyra Neutron: so..i am not flattering myself..to be part of the big clock...[13:40] herman Bergson: this is all about your subjective knowledge Kyra...[13:40] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[13:40] Kyra Neutron: as much as all of us[13:40] Kyra Neutron: has[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the scientists[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the ones that try to "wolf"[13:40] herman Bergson: that doesnt have any effect on scientific knowledge of reality[13:40] Kyra Neutron: till you connect[13:40] Kyra Neutron: you are subjectvie[13:40] Mick Nerido: I see objective evidence of a previous existence of the world before I was here, History[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: but you agree you are part of something?[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: objectively?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: it is not my agree[13:41] Kyra Neutron: baldur..[13:41] Kyra Neutron: or knowledge[13:41] herman Bergson: sollipsime isnt refutable logically...[13:42] herman Bergson: even philosophically a waste of time[13:42] Kyra Neutron: oks herman[13:42] Kyra Neutron: but what you try to say[13:42] herman Bergson: betrand Russell once received a letter from a highly gifted mathematician....She wrote..I am a solipsist now...I wonder why you aren't[13:42] Kyra Neutron: or learn[13:42] Kyra Neutron: is already there[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: you don't agree..not bee part of something.. so how come you can participate in a discussion[13:42] Kyra Neutron: ..........[13:43] Kyra Neutron: he also had given a high blessing for "being nothing"[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: smile what is there is undergoing eternal change..[13:43] herman Bergson: Not sure what you mean Kyra....[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hmm[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hiçliğin türküsü[13:44] herman Bergson: Your point in one statement...regarding objective and subjective[13:44] Kyra Neutron: idk the english translation of it[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: right..[13:44] Kyra Neutron: opening for one of his statements :)[13:44] herman Bergson: whose statements?[13:44] Kyra Neutron: porphyre eglantine[13:44] herman Bergson: dont know the man/woman[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it is called ( russells book )[13:45] Mick Nerido: "Biocenterism" agrees with Kyra[13:45] Elia Scribe: The solipsist would seem to be lonely.[13:45] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): "song of nothingness"[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..for the rest of the group..can we let[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: herman finish his class and then we talk?[13:46] Kyra Neutron: the existentialist's crisis[13:46] Kyra Neutron: or sth like that..[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..here we deal with real arguments only..not with references to books or authors....[13:46] Kyra Neutron: yes..song of nothingness[13:46] Kyra Neutron: ty hakan..[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yw[13:46] Kyra Neutron: so the example..is not fitting[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): or "ballad of nonexixtence"[13:46] herman Bergson: If we would do that we also could refer to the bible any time[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: or i shall talk about kafka for the next half hour[13:47] Kyra Neutron: hahaha[13:47] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:47] Kyra Neutron: kafka[13:47] Kyra Neutron: and you has blessed time without ky[13:47] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:47] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yep[13:47] herman Bergson: Not acceptable in a philosophical debate...[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: SMILE TY KYR[13:47] herman Bergson: I want arguments....[13:47] herman Bergson: Logical[13:48] herman Bergson: verifiable[13:48] Elia Scribe: Logical = Linguistic?[13:48] herman Bergson: and that is all[13:48] herman Bergson: no ELia..[13:48] Kyra Neutron: herman..this is my "logic"[13:48] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:48] herman Bergson: Just pure and simple logic..[13:49] herman Bergson: that something either true of false[13:49] herman Bergson: for instance[13:49] Kyra Neutron: lauging ...hidden :)[13:49] Elia Scribe: Pure and simple logic seems an ideal, perhaps not existent?[13:49] Kyra Neutron: oks...true or false[13:49] Elia Scribe: Ahh.[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is like binary ...[13:49] herman Bergson: oh yes..you live by it every day elia..[13:49] Kyra Neutron: but..now we have this ;[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is true + and+ false[13:50] Elia Scribe: In what sense do you mean that Herman?[13:50] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): maybe for me it is true and for you it is false[13:50] Evie1: sorry rl calls bye all[13:50] herman Bergson: ok kyra...you go outside..and you say..look it is raining and not raining at the same time[13:50] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:51] herman Bergson: Just as I said Elia...[13:51] Kyra Neutron: can you define where i am ?[13:51] Kyra Neutron: i simply cant...[13:51] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): here in sl[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: KYRA..please ..i'm sure herman will be ready to dicuss those questions after class on in the diswcussion for hours.. but think of the others..simple minded people like me..who want to get basics..[13:51] herman Bergson: when you go outside and you observe that is is not raining you will not say it is raining[13:51] Kyra Neutron: ok ok ....[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! guys I have to go rl stuff[13:52] herman Bergson: well Baldur..that basics of today are these[13:52] Elia Scribe: Well there is interaction with the world. Is this a part of the logic I do every day?[13:52] herman Bergson: consciousness is a subjective matter....[13:52] Kyra Neutron: yes....ty at last![13:52] herman Bergson: there is only your conscious....[13:53] herman Bergson: question is...[13:53] herman Bergson: tho it is a subjective matter...[13:53] Kyra Neutron: yes you can[13:53] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you can define what consciousness is: and then it is objective[13:53] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of your subjective consciousness[13:53] Kyra Neutron: my answer was for herman..[13:53] herman Bergson: We leave that out for the moment Siggi…plaza[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: if you agree that all organic life is an individal entity..[13:54] Kyra Neutron: no[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: makes may be easier to understand[13:54] herman Bergson: your subjective conscious is subjective in an ontological sense...[13:55] herman Bergson: but when you smash your thumb with a hammer I can ask you...does it hurt???[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you will say ..yes...[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: kyra might love it[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:55] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: she feels she exists:)[13:55] herman Bergson: this means...epistemically...as knowledge I can verify the statement..Baldur's thumb hurt...[13:56] herman Bergson: I gather evidence...[13:56] herman Bergson: You are screaming....[13:56] Kyra Neutron: 100% right baldur[13:56] herman Bergson: I could have a brainscan...showing C fibres firing...[13:56] herman Bergson: I can see the blood...[13:56] herman Bergson: and so on....[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: sure Kyra bleeds?[13:57] Kyra Neutron: periodicly yes[13:57] herman Bergson: I have soon hundreds of cases like that...and all said….revealing their subjecive consciousness with the words.....IT HURTS![13:57] Kyra Neutron: so i needs hammer[13:57] Kyra Neutron: but as part of...no[13:57] herman Bergson: I cant feel the pain....but I CAN have objective knowledge about it....[13:57] Kyra Neutron: (lag)[13:58] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:58] herman Bergson: therefore I give you morphine :-)[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: WELL IF I OBSERVE IT IT WOULD bew a subjectiv e observation.. smile which doenbs't hurt me[13:58] Kyra Neutron: you cant have objective knowledge[13:58] Kyra Neutron: never ever ever[13:58] Kyra Neutron: "you"[13:58] Kyra Neutron: is subjective[13:58] herman Bergson: oh yes Kyra....[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: right kyra..but you share your emotion with others..so they won't do it again..[13:58] Kyra Neutron: it is your chemical compound[13:59] Mick Nerido: If a tree falls and no one hears it did it make a sound?[13:59] herman Bergson: When I have a big rock....and I see it fall on you..you will be crushed....[13:59] Kyra Neutron: your electric connections[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: which means ..your brain is in connection with your ewnvironment[13:59] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:59] Kyra Neutron: coz..you raised by that knowledge[13:59] Kyra Neutron: you say you will be crushed[13:59] Kyra Neutron: so my mother has raised by that knowledge[13:59] herman Bergson: the observations is completely independent of my consciousness...[13:59] herman Bergson: Every person will find that splash of blood and bones under that rock[14:00] Kyra Neutron: and my grandson..will be..[14:00] Kyra Neutron: if it doesnt..raised by that[14:00] Kyra Neutron: how dare you can say..it will be crushed?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will lift it[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will divide it into small pieces[14:00] Kyra Neutron: there wont be any rock at all[14:00] Kyra Neutron: or[14:00] Elia Scribe: Herman, isn't this practical truth? What the Buddhists call conventional reality?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: belive is everything[14:01] Mick Nerido: I must leave, thanks for the spirited discussion[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: kyra.. human evlution is lagregely dependent on the communication possibilities..which include abstacts..l[14:01] Kyra Neutron: o.O,[14:01] herman Bergson: I agree Mick…this discussion can go on for ages :-)[14:01] Kyra Neutron: mick pls ..i am sorry for opening my frog mouth .7[14:01] herman Bergson: No ..you have the right to do that Kyra..like everyone here[14:02] Elia Scribe: Behind that AV you are a frog?[14:02] Doodus Moose: i'm heading for the wine cellar right after this....[14:02] herman Bergson: But your ideas about that falling rock are questionable[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): good night to all[14:02] Kyra Neutron: oh my...save some for us?[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..herman told us fromnthe beginning that philosophy is allaboitu asking questions[14:03] Kyra Neutron: baldur[14:03] herman Bergson: Good idea Doodus....I share that with you in an objective way:-)[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it may be...[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: smile finding the right questions is the quest:9[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it is not only the questions[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: not finding the answers :9[14:03] herman Bergson: Finding the wine cellar is now our next objective[14:04] herman Bergson: So..may I thank you all for this vivd debate....[14:04] herman Bergson: Thank you Kyra…we're not done yet ...give it time[14:04] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[14:04] Kyra Neutron: ty[14:04] Kyra Neutron: for[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
In 1994 Antonio R. Damasio, one of the world's leading neurobiologists, published his book "Descartes' Error - Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain". Because I was teaching my computer classes at an Academy of Fine Art, I was completely unaware of this important fact.All subjects we are discussing here today have emerged in neurobiology, evolutionary psychology and the philosophy of mind during the past 25 years, if we take the important work of Patricia Churchland "Neurophilosophy" (1986) as a milestone.But Descartes (1596 - 1650) was born more than 400 years ago? Yet, the modern conception of the philosophy of mind begins with his work.This French philosopher articulated a crucial distinction between two kinds of substances, mental and physical. This was a really convenient solution for a growing problem.The world had become a world of physical science in his time. No longer was the world explained by referring to the Hand of God or mysterious witchcraft or alchemy.The world had become a world of mechanically explicable processes, simple chains of cause and effect, a world where the saying became stronger and stronger: "I first want to really see it, before I gonna believe it."In 2003 Damasio published another book: "Looking for Spinoza - Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain". In Dutch the title became "Het Gelijk van Spinoza" (The Rightness of Spinoza). A reference to Decartes' Error.Was Descartes in error? In fact extracted the mind from matter by his famous "Cogito, ergo sum." (I think, therefore I exist.) For existing you only have to be aware of your thoughts. You don't need a material body for that…… that "material body" can be just an imagination, a thought itself.So he came to the conclusion that the physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics and….that the mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness. For this conclusion he had strong arguments: a basic principle from Leibniz, the “indiscernibility of identicals”: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing—then anything true of one is true of the other. Descartes argued: I can doubt that I have a body or any part of a body. I can even doubt that I have a brain—maybe that is part of the illusion. I cannot doubt that I have a mind. There is, therefore, something true of my mind that is true of no part of my body: I cannot doubt that I have it. It follows by Leibniz’s principle that my mind cannot be my body or any part of my body. My mind cannot be my brain. And thus was DUALISM born. Physical things, Descartes says, are always extended and occupy space. Mental things do not have physical dimension in the same way. Spinoza as a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part.That is why Spinoza definitely was not liked by the church. Descartes had his problems with the church, but his dualism saved the soul and gave the physical realm to science.In 1984 John Searle, a leading philosopher of mind, formulated the problem of Dualism thus:At the moment, the biggest problem is this: We have a certain commonsense picture of ourselves as human beings which is very hard to square with our overall 'scientific' conception of the physical world. We think of ourselves as conscious, free, mindful, rational agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of mindless, meaningless physical particles. Now, how can we square these two conceptions? How, for example, can it be the case that the world contains nothing but unconscious physical particles, and yet that it also contains consciousness? How can a mechanical universe contain intentionalistic human beings – that is, human beings that can represent the world to themselves? How, in short, can an essentially meaningless world contain meanings?Was Descartes showing us a real problem or was he really mistaken and made he us look for centuries in the wrong direction?The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that in the next lecture...:-))[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: ok interesting..:)[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours[13:24] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): we seem to be driven to think that like should have a meaning[13:24] Zinzi Serevi: it has a meaning when we give it and only then[13:24] herman Bergson: what do you mean aristotle[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): when we look for meaning, why would there be meaning?[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes..but what is meant to say is that when giving a meaning to something...it is a representation in our mind of the intended object[13:26] herman Bergson: No...we create meaning by reflecting on the world around us...[13:26] herman Bergson: That is a special about consciousness...[13:26] herman Bergson: We can represnt the world in our mind[13:26] herman Bergson: And think about it....[13:27] herman Bergson: We have symbols...like the word chair....and we can think about it, even when there is no chair around...[13:28] herman Bergson: But that is just one of the complex faculties of the mind[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes its objective representation in our subjective minds[13:28] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is our weird experience....[13:28] herman Bergson: that we really have the feeling that the mind , our consciousness is something apart from our body[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): of course I feel that is true[13:29] herman Bergson: And descartes took it one step further....[13:30] herman Bergson: He even thought that the mental was not material...[13:30] herman Bergson: Next lecture I'll show you that it got him into serious trouble[13:31] herman Bergson: serious[13:31] herman Bergson: Hi Ciska:-)[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought can not be touched, how could it be material?[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: hello & sorry :([13:31] Ciska Riverstone accepted your inventory offer.[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...that is the odd thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: how to understand that....[13:32] herman Bergson: material things are visible...thoughts seem to be invisible for instance[13:32] herman Bergson: and another thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: we all can see the objects around us....[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): like love we can only touch the objective manifestations of it[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you cannot touch thoughts but you can prove that there is happening something in your brain[13:32] herman Bergson: but nobody can see my private thoughts[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh sure Siggi....[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: thank god..:P[13:33] herman Bergson: Dont worry...we'll get to that definitely[13:34] herman Bergson: But the question is ..more or less....is it Descartes or is it Spinoza :-)[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but is the brain only reacting to our minds?[13:34] herman Bergson: No Aristotle....the brain generates the mind....[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought must be the creator[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): or the brain must be the creator of mind[13:35] herman Bergson: The brain is just an interesting biological process....[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain is just a machine[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): brain[13:36] herman Bergson: that is a metafor Aristotle...[13:36] herman Bergson: what do you mean by it?[13:36] herman Bergson: The brain is a biological organism ...not a machine[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes the fuel is the mind[13:36] herman Bergson smiles[13:37] herman Bergson: Well..that will gonna be a debate Aristotle....for the future...[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, it is just a feeling I have[13:37] herman Bergson: for I 'll try to hold the thesis that the brain generates the mind.....or in other words...the mind is a feature of the brain[13:38] Mick Nerido: I agree the mind spings from the brain[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL, I am in opposition to that of course, but have no proof[13:38] herman Bergson: That is not a problem Aristotle....[13:39] herman Bergson: But I think your opposing view will be fundamentally put to the test in the coming lectures :-)[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I only seek proof that I am right or wrong[13:39] herman Bergson: But you knew that ...as I made my basic assumptions clear in the very first lecture of this project :-)[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...right or wrong….don't know whether that is the right way to approach the issue....[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, just traveling with you to the end :)[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): if someone offrs proof then I am able to refine my philosophy[13:41] herman Bergson: We know little ..and philosophically we are constant in debate with reality[13:41] herman Bergson: I think it is more a matter of plausability....[13:42] herman Bergson: and from that respect..productivity for scientific research for instance[13:42] Mick Nerido: Duality is dead, mind and brain are one?[13:42] herman Bergson: sssttttt Mick.....[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am merely a pirate collecting treasure[13:42] Ortwin Sveiss: but when we ourselves are real, how can we debate with something we´re part of?[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): who said duality is dead, the one who want it to be dead?[13:42] herman Bergson: .[13:43] herman Bergson: Ortwin....you mean ..the mind is evaluating the mind?[13:43] herman Bergson: Ultimate bellybutton staring???[13:43] Ortwin Sveiss: yes[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: *G*[13:43] herman Bergson: Well there is an answer to that question....[13:44] herman Bergson: A bit complicated..but I'll give it a try.....[13:45] herman Bergson: We have two things..... the real world around us...that is...the answer to the question what is....we call it the ontology....[13:45] herman Bergson: Hi Aya :-)[13:45] Aya Beaumont: hello professor. =)[13:46] Ortwin Sveiss: aha well with two parties a debate is possible[13:46] herman Bergson: no no...wait...[13:47] herman Bergson: the second thing we have is knowledge about what is....[13:47] herman Bergson: that is called the epistemology....[13:48] herman Bergson: The problem you refer to is....how can a personal mind have objective knowledge of THE MIND, because he only has its own mind[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the argument within is between our subjective selves and our objective selves[13:48] herman Bergson: exactly Aristotle....[13:49] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I say brain and mind or consciousness is the same thing as e.g. fire and heat or fire and light[13:49] Ortwin Sveiss: yes, and why should we separate ourselves or the knowlegde within us from ontology by introducing epistemology?[13:50] Aya Beaumont: I don't know why having an understanding of our own minds would be any more impossible than say, touching one's own hand.[13:50] herman Bergson: Fisrt Siggi.....there you touch the right button...we'll get to that in next lectures[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): before each of those things you meantine Siggi you must place the Sun for either one[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Aya.....[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): mentioned*[13:51] herman Bergson: I am not introducing epistemology.....that we can KNOW things is just a fact ...and we call it epistemology in philosophical circles[13:51] herman Bergson: but the whole issue is about subjective and objective....[13:52] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of the mind....[13:52] herman Bergson: that is..knowledge..independent of a particular observer...[13:52] Aya Beaumont: Whenever we do things, ourself is the one thing we always take into account. The mind, while obviously not able to have DETAILED information on how our minds work, we can learn the principles of it just fine.[13:52] herman Bergson: Thsi is getting complicated.....[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): surely modern science will invent a "mindscope"[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: of the brain yes- but not of the mind.[13:53] herman Bergson: There Ciska......!!!! that statement....[13:53] Aya Beaumont: Yes, of the MIND. =) The mind is a direct expression of our brain.[13:53] herman Bergson: Again a bookshelf long :-)[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: not only one[13:53] Aya Beaumont: There is, quite literally no difference between them.[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we better slow down....[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain being organic tissue creates the mind?[13:54] herman Bergson: Aya you tickle every nerve in me....but I can make them only fire in new lectures ^_^[13:54] Aya Beaumont giggles.[13:55] Aya Beaumont: Thank you, professor.[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....at least that I can say[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): that is just a magical as the mind creating the brain[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:55] Aya Beaumont: The brain is ALL that we are, and ALL that we are is the brain.[13:55] herman Bergson: So let's summarize...[13:55] herman Bergson: At least ortwin has a good point....[13:56] herman Bergson: how can a subjective mind have knowledge of THE MIND....[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): perhaps that is my problem, I have relegated the brain to be just a worker[13:56] Aya Beaumont: And it's pointless to talk about a mind unless you equate it to the functioning of the brain. =)[13:56] herman Bergson: I know...Aya...but it is the way you formulate your view which is a whole debate....[13:57] Aya Beaumont: Heh. Okay.[13:57] herman Bergson: which is a second issue we'll address in further lectures[13:57] herman Bergson: You were really good....![13:58] herman Bergson: Well you put a few things on my desk to come up about with good explanations :-)[13:58] herman Bergson: But don't worry..:-)[13:59] Aya Beaumont: I look forward to those lectures then. =)[13:59] herman Bergson: There are real good answers to our questions..[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: did you read Alva Noe Herman?[13:59] herman Bergson: No..not familiar with the name[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~noe/an_writing.html[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[14:00] herman Bergson: OK!!![14:00] herman Bergson: I love such input :-)[14:01] herman Bergson: You really were a very good class today.....thank you all for your participation.....[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to relax :-)[14:01] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor :)[14:01] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thank you[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you and good night[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): goodnight Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks herman[14:02] herman Bergson: You too ciska[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: bye Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: goodnight all[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am off, good night everyone[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Aristotle...[14:02] herman Bergson: take care[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: yes me too good night[14:10] Mick Nerido: Sorry i was busy[14:16] herman Bergson: You were excused Mick...:-)[14:17] Mick Nerido: I tried my best to be here it was a great subject today
