skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In fact it is remarkable, that in the philosophy of mind we speak of "The Mind - Body PROBLEM". Is it really a problem and in what sense is it a problem?Let's see, what most people take for granted. Real facts:1. You have a mind and a body;2. These normally work together; 3. Your body is something physical and, thus, everybody can see you;4. However, nobody can look into your mind. We love stories of mind readers, but so far these are still fairy tales5. Which means that tho everybody can see your physical outside, you have privileged access to the content of your mind.These are apparently rather obvious facts of life. We all know that we have a body and a mind and that the mind is not the same as the body.But when you put these obvious facts under a philosophical magnifying glass, there may rise serious questions? Especially, ok….the body is physical, but the mind? What kind of material is a mind made of.And when I look at this physical body of mine, makes it sense to ask where my mind is? Is it really in my head, as I am inclined to think?The simplest position that makes sense regarding these questions is called Dualism, a philosophical answer to such questions developed by Descartes (1596 - 1650).Descartes thought to have proved that the mind really was distinct from the body. According to him there are two substances in the universe: the physical and the mental.The physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics. The mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness.The logic of Descartes arguments has had such an impact on our thinking about the mind, that we still are prone to take a dualistic approach when we talk about our body and mind.Maybe you could say, that Descartes showed with strong and logical arguments, that our common sense ideas about the existence of a mind in a body are justified.The arguments lead to two related conclusions: 1. that your mind is in no way the same thing as your body or any part of your body;2. that what is essential to you is not your body but your mind.Crucial to the argument is a basic principle which was later named by Leibniz (1646 -1717) the "indiscernibility of identicals".The basic idea is: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing-- then anything true of one is true of the other or more technically said: For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.I guess most of you will know Descartes strategy to discover absolutely certain knowledge. He would have loved the movie the Matrix and would have said…there, you see? All can be fake; everything is only in your mind. You can doubt almost everything.And here comes the proof, that Dualism MUST be right. Remember the "indiscernibility of identicals" principle. What does it tell us? If A and B are identical, are the very same thing, then what true is of A is true of B as well.So IF the body is identical with the mind …. remember the slogan "We are our brain!", then what is true of the body is true of the mind.However, I truly can doubt the reality of my body. I can imagine that I have a body or some evil demon makes me believe that I have a body.But can an evil demon make me imagine that I am doubting? Were I to doubt that I was doubting, I still would be doubting. The same applies to thinking. I still would be thinking. That means….whatever there is in reality, only of the existence of the mind, my mind, I can be absolutely certain.In other words, I say something that is true of my mind, which is not true of my body. So body and mind can not be identical substances. Thence Dualism is right!The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡[13:22] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::[13:22] Adriana Jinn: very interesting[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you Qwark...[13:23] Qwark Allen: i arrived just in time[13:23] herman Bergson: If anyone has a question or remark...the floor is yours ㋡[13:23] herman Bergson smiles[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: i can see that if the mind isn't visible there is no such thing as 2 thing, but only the body, a thinking body[13:23] Jenna Felton is Offline[13:23] herman Bergson: In coming lectures I'll show you that Dualism can't be true...[13:24] Qwark Allen: we are matter and electricity[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: that mean that there isn't a duality but or just a mind that we cannot see as a thing,[13:24] Qwark Allen: 2 different things[13:24] herman Bergson: Well.....[13:24] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that there really were two different substances....[13:25] herman Bergson: Therefor his ideas are called substance dualism....[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: this is the position of descartes as only the mind, as a thin with all into it, that made me think of the opposite[13:25] Mick Nerido: like earth, air water fire?[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll see in coming lectures that attempts have been made to uphold a weaker form of dualism[13:25] Qwark Allen: science nowadays says the same, we cannot explain conscience, but seems we are getting the idea how the brain process the information[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: why didn't he explore as leibniz the posibility of no 2 thing?[[13:26] herman Bergson: A philosopher he knew...Spinoza denied that there were two substances...[13:26] druth Vlodovic: because dualism explained the "inherent truths" that felt real due to their religious socialization as children[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its difficult to figure out where he had the confirmation of the mind as a substance,,,[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Druth.....Descartes has a religious bias...[13:27] herman Bergson: He had to leave matter to science en the mental/the soul to religion[13:27] herman Bergson: It was a kind of intellectual escape for him[13:28] herman Bergson: Spinoza was severely punished for his monistic ideas...[13:29] herman Bergson: He dared to say that when the body dies there doesn't remain a soul...[13:29] herman Bergson: that lives on for ever[13:29] herman Bergson: immortal soul...yes[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: so that would explain his rejection of the earthly body importance?[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes could leave that out of the debate[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: as low.... or insignificant, and all in the soul or mind or spirit?[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes ...since decartes western thought has put the ratio at first place....[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: well we had that influence a lot is it[13:30] herman Bergson: nowadays you see that we leave that position[13:31] herman Bergson: and say that we are not mainly RATIONAL beings...[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: lol[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: :)[13:31] herman Bergson: In fact Freud already pointed at that fact by defining the subconscious[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: in gestalt they pointed the subconscious into the body,,[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: when in contact with certain part of the body , lost memory came back[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes...but as something that influences our actions....[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: yes[13:33] herman Bergson: If nobody has any questions or so anymore.....[13:33] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation....[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: if the mind is linked to the body as separate throught the nervous wire, than those wire pass all throught it, i see a brain body....[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:33] Doodus Moose: Thanks, indeed, Professor![13:34] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll see how right Dualism is[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: thank you Herman - very interesting[13:34] herman Bergson: or wrong of course ㋡[13:34] Doodus Moose: hihi[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: its very interesting, mm my cup of tea[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: thanks[13:34] herman Bergson: My pleasure Alaya[13:35] Doodus Moose: now to use my mind to decide what to feed the body :-)[13:35] druth Vlodovic: what if we all get so firmly converted to dualism that you can't bring us back around?[13:35] Qwark Allen: very interesting as always[13:35] Qwark Allen paid you L$100.[13:35] herman Bergson: I am not afraid of that Druth....[13:35] Doodus Moose: byeeeeee!!!!!![13:35] herman Bergson: Philosophy is about clear and logical arguments.[13:36] Adriana Jinn: thank you very much professor[13:36] herman Bergson: So do Decartes arguments hold?[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll put that to the test![13:36] herman Bergson: It will be interesting ㋡[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:37] Adriana Jinn: as always[13:37] Mick Nerido: Mind over matter or matter over mind..[13:37] Qwark Allen: seems we are still in the mind/jar theme[13:37] herman Bergson: THAT is a dualistic way of thinking Mick[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: or again maybe not ;) - we will find out -maybe its just like someone said the other day: we need a new language ;)[13:38] Mick Nerido: That is our common sense way of thinking[13:38] herman Bergson: That may be true Ciska...[13:39] herman Bergson: In 1986 Patricia Churchland said so in her book Neurophilosophy[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: language makes borders too[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: not needed ones i guess - useless ones for understanding sometimes[13:39] herman Bergson: And there are others that claim that our mental concepts will become obsolete...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: yes...[13:40] herman Bergson: Like we now don't speak of spells and whitchcraft etc anymore...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: other words - same concept different way of seeing it ;)))[13:40] herman Bergson: yes....something like that[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well- we will see what you offer herman - always great to get insights ㋡[13:41] Mick Nerido: Thanks, bye[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: have a great time everyone[13:41] herman Bergson: Like water, earth, fire and air are no longer concepts in physics...[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks[13:41] herman Bergson: Bye ciska
Like every organism on these planet the homo sapiens is a result of evolution. We may be inclined to think only of his physical appearance, but of course the brain is not exempt from this evolution.The central nervous system has been the tool in evolution that made us survive in changing environments. Through the millennia it developed two strategies: the capacity for both logical analysis and intuitive reasoning, but one is slow and ponderous while the other is fast and furious.The idea is that the intuitive part of the mind developed earlier in evolution than the rational part. It makes sense. The brain is wired to see order and structures, so that we can interpret our experiences and decide how to act on them.Maybe some individuals weren't satisfied with such interpretations and stared to wonder, if there could be other explanations for the phenomena. This might have been the beginning of the evolution of the rational part of the mind.What crosses my mind here is, that in the jungles of the Amazone there still may live undiscovered tribes. They are still hunters and live in a way their prehistoric answers might have lived.Do they live in a world, where their supersense has prevailed over the rational part of the brain. Does it indicate how the evolution of the brain is influenced by environment?How about us? We have our intuitive thinking, to believe there are things out there, where the rational part of the mind says: you are mistaken. Yet we are inclined to believe in psychological essentialism, vitalism, holism.We are inclined to an intuitive dualism and the idea that the mind can exist independently of the body. All of these ways of thinking are both naturally emerging and yet supernatural in their explanations of the world.Can we ever get rid of the supersense? Will the evolution of mankind continue and make us evolve into a species that uses logic over and above emotion and intuition?This seems unlikely and there are some reasons why. In the first place I have said from the beginning that our brain is wired to generate our rationality but also our supersense.This inclination to hold supernatural beliefs is part of our make-up and it seemingly served us well through evolution, otherwise we wouldn't be here.There is another reason. Our intuitive thinking makes it possible to hold certain values as sacred. It tells us that there are things we should not question. Something is sacred when members of society regard it as beyond any monetary value.A situation: a hospital with debts. The managing director gets one million dollars. He has a choice: spend the money on an urgent transplant operation that will save the life of a child or reduce the hospital's debts, which would guarantee the future of the hospital. What would you do? Most people would say: of course …save the child. And other questionable questionable things: would you love to posses and wear the clothes of a serial killer, or add the meat hooks to your collection of memorabilia, by which the Nazis have hung their victims.I think that you can regard value ethics as an expression of this conviction, which we share with others in our society and which binds us.On the other hand when our rational part of the mind would be our only (social) tool everything would be reduced to a cost-benefit analysis. It is material, analytic, scientific. Everything only would have its price.Some people in our society tend to believe so. How much do I have to pay you for sleeping with your wife? Some of you may frown, others might feel a moral outrage.Yet I see here a parallel with Jeremy Benthem's attempt to calculate measures of happiness. Utilitarianism as the cost-benefit analysis of moral values.My conclusion is, that our supersense is deeply embedded in our thinking and ironically makes it possible for us to regard certain supernatural beliefs as rational. And this holds society together.On the other hand it means that we can have access to the mechanisms of the brain that generate our supersense ideas, which may help us understand their irrationality and function in human life.By understanding the functioning of the brain more and more we also may understand better and better how to deal with the meaning of the supernatural in human psychology and even with fundamental philosophical questions about the self, identity and consciousness.For now, the brain and neurological findings are our next station.The discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you...[13:26] herman Bergson: You have the floor ^_^[13:26] Simargl Talaj: People living in hunter-gatherer subsistence mode are not more intuitive, less rational. They're rational, with different data.[13:26] Simargl Talaj: I reject also that purely rational life would be amoral. Logic proceeds from premise, actions from objectives. If my premise/objective is harmlessness, I am rational and ethical.[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: i would like to join your conclusion of the embedding in our thinking :-)[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Simargl your first remark is right.[13:27] Simargl Talaj: hunter-gatherers tell us nothing about brain evolution because they are not primitive.[13:27] herman Bergson: what I only wanted to bring to your attention is the contingency of the development of the mind[13:27] Simargl Talaj: They tell us only about culture in relation to environment.[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: so, as rational humans we recognize that the collective as large as it has gorwn cannot hold together, so we invent a paste to secure it[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...that seems to be the man function of our supersense[13:29] herman Bergson: the hunter-gatherers have certainly the same evolution of the brain as we have...[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: an artificail state of affairs for a portion's benefit[13:30] herman Bergson: but their environment didn't probably provoke rationality to survive....I dont know[13:30] Simargl Talaj: Indeed hunter gatherer life requires more rationality than urban life.[13:30] herman Bergson: What is interesting is that science and technology developed in Europe mainly...[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect the brainstem is fixed and our cerebral cortex only attempts to keep it in check[13:31] herman Bergson: The chinese culture shows a lot of scientific insights long before the European ones developed...[13:32] Simargl Talaj: as did the Arabs[13:32] Simargl Talaj: no culture keeps the lead at all times[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: and that our cerebral evolution is self-determined[13:32] herman Bergson: There never was a Chinese or arabic Newton or Copernicus for instance[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: there are many conflicts in this situation i think[13:32] herman Bergson: It is not about the lead Simargl[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: perhaps perception is part of the answer[13:33] herman Bergson: It is about the effect on global development of the species...[13:33] Simargl Talaj: to be rational and to be learned are two different things. Science requires not only rationality but texts, precedents, giant shoulders to stand upon.[13:33] herman Bergson: So the history of science is an interesting source of information...[13:34] Simargl Talaj: There is no evidence of European brains having any greater rational faculty than those of desert aborigines. Science is an effect of history, not evolution.[13:34] herman Bergson: That is not the point Simargl....[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:34] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: i think it is cultural also[13:34] herman Bergson: What this is about is the relation between evolution of the brain and environment[13:35] herman Bergson: the relation between environment and the development of culture[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: the math that europeans used came from the east[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...that is SOOO remarkable…[13:35] herman Bergson: Our logic comes from india[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: yes Gemma,, isn't that fascinating?![13:35] herman Bergson: our math comes from arabic scientists in the 10th century[13:36] Simargl Talaj: Herman, so are you asking "Is it possible to dispense with supersense, cuz its intuitive basis is maybe not needed now?"[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:36] Bejiita Imako: like Algebra and such[13:36] herman Bergson: Then you misunderstood Simargl...[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and the numbers we use are arabic symbols[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: seems the Europeans were good at reaping other culture's evolutionary progress[13:36] herman Bergson: I said it is part and parcel of our brain /mind[13:37] herman Bergson: Dawkins would love to discard of supersense I guess[13:37] herman Bergson: I think that is a mistake....[13:37] herman Bergson: It would mean to deactivate about 50% of our brain I guess[13:38] herman Bergson: Besides as Aristotle also noted....it works as a social paste...[13:38] herman Bergson: We NEED values to control our social behavior[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: that is not a good picture in my eyes[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: social paste[13:38] Simargl Talaj: I reject that values can only emerge from the antirational.[13:38] herman Bergson: social glue..Aristotle used paste[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: some of us apply oil to keep the paste from adhering[13:39] herman Bergson: That Simargl was the idea of the utilitarians too.[13:39] Simargl Talaj: To the conttrary I believe evil emerges chiefly from the antirational.[13:39] herman Bergson: antirational????[13:39] Simargl Talaj: witch hunts illustrate this[13:39] Simargl Talaj: that which is believed in spite of and against rational examination[13:40] Simargl Talaj: and rejects the validity of rational examination[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: there is always a benefit to someone in every atrosity[13:40] herman Bergson: that is our definition more or less of supersense, yes[13:41] herman Bergson: The cost-benefit analysis is what the rationality comes up with to establish values[13:41] herman Bergson: What do we win - what do we loose...[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: how much did the church benefit from the crusades, how much are we paying for it today?[13:42] Simargl Talaj: If you properly assess benefit and cost, this is moral. If my sense of "cost" includes your pain.[13:42] herman Bergson: and the matter is, that we value certain things that cant be expressed in terms of money[13:43] herman Bergson: As I said before...study Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill on this approach of ethics[13:43] Simargl Talaj: It is irrational to assess such things in terms of money. So that failure is not a failure of the rational.[13:44] Simargl Talaj: it is a failure to be rational.[13:45] herman Bergson: I guess that is a rational conclusion Simargl :-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: aaa trye[13:45] Bejiita Imako: true[13:46] Bejiita Imako: not all value can be expressed in money[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all for your particiaption.....[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: money is a very rational motive[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: Thanks, Professor[13:46] Bejiita Imako: what is a human worth for example[13:46] herman Bergson: We'll move on to the next stage of our quest about the brain/mind[13:46] Bejiita Imako: a life cant be measured in money[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: yet it is[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: or at least in trade for it[13:47] Simargl Talaj: in fact we measure our own lives in money when we decide to take a risk because avoiding it would be too expensive.[13:47] herman Bergson: Exactly bejiita[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: money equals survival[13:47] Bejiita Imako: money is just a way we use to put value on things[13:48] herman Bergson: A would call that an American way of thinking with a failing healthcare system, Simargl :-)[13:48] Bejiita Imako: cause we want to have something back for doing something, ex, make a product[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL and now we have a new frontier after the election,all hell is breaking loose[13:48] Simargl Talaj: <= outraged American, advocate of national healthcare[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes ari[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: me too simargi[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hahah[13:49] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:49] herman Bergson: Ok this is of the record now...[13:49] herman Bergson: officially class is dismissed[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
Our world is full of supernatural beliefs. Do you hold supernatural beliefs and can you answer the question WHY you do so? Just this morning in my newspaper… a short report about the Norwegian royal princess Märtha Louise. She is 38.In an interview she had revealed that she could talk with the dead and talk with angels, which caused a storm of criticism. And the criticism is from my perspective really funny. The protestant bishop, Laila Riksaanen Dahl told on the Norwegian TV that the dead are the exclusive business of God and that they should be left in peace.QUOTE: " To change this, can unleash dark forces, which we do not know."I live with superstition in my own life too. Look at this picture. This object I have in my left pocket… yes definitely the left pocket. Nothing else may be in that pocket, no coins, no keys..only this object.It has three parts. That coin with a hole in it is a so called age coin, used for instance in discos to prevent too young people to get access to cigarette machines. I found it on the stairs of the entrance of the institute I worked. I found it on the last working day before my retirement. I recognized its symbolic meaning and kept it.The little animal may be hard to recognize, but it is a small elephant. When my wife was born her parents really picked her first name from the newspaper. It was the name of a little elephant born in a Dutch zoo on the same day.The other part is St. Christopher.Christopher has always been a widely popular saint, being especially revered by athletes, mariners, ferrymen, and travelers. So, I guess that he helps to keep me on the right track.Quite a lot of nonsense beliefs, isn't it. (^_^) Ok, I plead guilty, but before you throw the first stone (seems to be popular again these days;-) look at your own life, where you may feel uncomfortable on Fryday the 13th, with a black cat or deeply guilty when you have committed a real sin in eyes of your God in your opinion.As we saw in our former lecture, this can not be simply attributed to our education or our culture. Especially because among other things, this does hardly explain why we are so WILLING to cherish our supernatural beliefs.This willingness is just in our mind, or to use Hood's words, we find the explanation in the design of our mind. "Design" means the organized way how our brain is equipped to understand and interpret the world.Just like our other body parts have evolved during millions of years, in the same way has our brain gone through an evolution to help us survive. Most scientists nowadays agree with the conclusion, that our brain is equipped with a set of specialized, internal mechanisms, which make it possible for us to process our experiences. In other words: we posses a mental toolbox.This makes me think of the epistemological debate about the origin of knowledge and how we discuss ontology. Can we conclude that Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804) is the winner of the debate?Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions and empty concepts, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.Then John Locke (1632 - 1704) is the looser. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa. Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born without innate ideas, and that knowledge is instead determined only by experience derived from sense perception.It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able to be of some use to us.Now we are so smart and impressed by the complexity of the brain, that we have great difficulty to believe that it has been different so many million years ago. The brain did not simply dropped from the sky, ready and fully operational.It is the result of a long evolution and the designer of this brain is natural selection. And here the battle begins, when we enter the field of evolutionary psychology.The application of evolutionary theory to the psychology and behavior of other animal species is generally uncontroversial. However, adaptationist approaches to human psychology are contentious, with critics questioning the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology, and with more minor debates within the field itself.Evolutionary Psychology is grounded on the theory that fundamentally our psychology is based on biology, the composition of our brains. This is a form of reductionism, a research philosophy according to which the nature of complex things can be understood in terms of simpler or more fundamental things (i.e. reduced).Now just read the following sentence: "The debates regarding the validity of evolutionary psychology have been regarded as occasionally quite vicious, with a strong ad hominem component."I found this statement in an article in Wikipedia and it did not surprise me at all. When Darwin published his evolutionary theory, the world was literally in shock. Was there a connection between an ape and the human being??? Impossible!The response was that cartoons showed Darwin as an ape. We are now entering a very sensitive area of the human discourse about ourselves. So let's keep our debates as objective and focused on the subject as possible, and let's avoid any ad hominem arguments.The Discusion[13:27] herman Bergson: Thank you...[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^[13:28] itsme Frederix: applause[13:28] APPLAUSE: A Hearty round of applause bursts from the crowd[13:28] Jozen Ocello: claps[13:28] herman Bergson: thank you...[13:28] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)[13:28] : Qwark Allen joins the applause.[13:28] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:28] herman Bergson: You surprise me..![13:28] itsme Frederix: some Quarcks are around[13:29] herman Bergson: So nothing new in my words..you are all ok with it? :-)[13:29] Beertje Beaumont: yes[13:29] herman Bergson: Great ^^[13:29] Quizzle Mode beams[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: yep[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: a mighty strength is required for most foslk to resist ad hominem argumentation[13:30] itsme Frederix: Well if you persist?[13:30] Qwark Allen: i believe that was a similar concept as natural selection that made the brain as it is[13:30] Qwark Allen: the sexual selection[13:30] itsme Frederix: I was triggered by this sentence "13:22] herman Bergson: It can no longer be denied that the brain is an active player in our existence and not just a passive organ that first has to be filled with sensory experiences before it is able do be of some use to us."[13:30] Qwark Allen: was the choice of thousands of years, of the female, that got us in this direction[13:30] Qwark Allen: not the natural selection[13:31] herman Bergson: Evolutionary psychology is fascinating.....especially the controversies…[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I would think with supernatural things it can only be ad hominem[13:31] itsme Frederix: Which implies a separation between "us" and "brain" (and maybe body?)[13:31] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle...[13:31] itsme Frederix: we utilize the brain or ... vice versa?[13:32] herman Bergson: the problem with beliefs is that people are in love with their own beliefs...[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: that is my suspicion itsme[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: oh my yes[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: the former[13:32] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL yes indeed they are[13:32] itsme Frederix: first Ari (and I think mine is a little besides the topic - et)[13:32] herman Bergson: and when you critizise their beliefs you critisize their beloved ones......the ones they cuddle every day[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: Hood I believe is one of them[13:33] herman Bergson: Hood is a horror to believers[13:33] Quizzle Mode: We come very close here to asking the unanswerable question of how can we know anything outside our own thoughts? Does anything at all exist outside one's thoughts/perceptions.[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie[13:33] herman Bergson: That is an old one Quizzle...sollipsism...[13:33] Qwark Allen: you got to read about darwin's nightmare with the peacock[13:34] Quizzle Mode: yes, and one we really just have to live with ;)[13:34] herman Bergson: But we leave the epistemological debate out here for the moment...and decline sollipsism as a tenable stand[13:35] herman Bergson: just a pragmatic point of view..^_^[13:35] herman Bergson: Wel I guess we can move on then....[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Sollipsism is the stand, not the question Prof, and I totally agree that we must leave the question aside for practical purposes.[13:36] herman Bergson: thank you Quizzle...[13:36] itsme Frederix: So to summarize: supersense is natural and gives way for supernatural thoughts/behaviour - and its all because it made (and makes)sense to survive.[13:36] herman Bergson: You could say that Itsme....[13:37] itsme Frederix: Well that is my interpretation of your speech and Hood's book[13:37] herman Bergson: If I look at my own personal superstition…it is just fun....and in a way emotionally not just fun....[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I just can not see any rationality much less empirical data to substantiate superstition except a feeling[13:37] herman Bergson: yes Aristorle...[13:37] Repose Lionheart: the human brain has a keen and evolved ability to see patterns and connections...a common element in "supernatural" perceptions[13:38] itsme Frederix: Herman, more then fun because these things co-relate with some good things in life, and you made the correlation[13:38] Beertje Beaumont: is supersense just for humans?[13:38] herman Bergson: But dont fall into the pittfal of binary tinking...[13:38] herman Bergson: that we are either rational or emotional...[13:38] herman Bergson: we are one....[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: it seems,like religion, added to the list of unprovable notions[13:39] herman Bergson: every thought has a rational and emotional dimension...[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: I have a 'feeling' we are not one[13:39] herman Bergson: if you only reduce our behavior to a permanent struggle to survive...[13:39] herman Bergson: we need it all..the rational and the irrational, it seems[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: well, yes....if we approach it as us being two selves[13:40] itsme Frederix: Arie, the point is that supersense is NOT unprovable but that it is a theory based on observations and fitting in evolutionairy thoughts[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: it becomes much clearer[13:40] herman Bergson: and there is no clear border between rational and irrational...[13:40] herman Bergson: that is just an idea generated by our brain[13:40] herman Bergson: a handy tool to understand the world around us[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aa o[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:41] herman Bergson: ok..[13:41] itsme Frederix: Herman, better to say a handy tool to .. handle and deal with the world[13:42] itsme Frederix: .. and ourselves in that world[13:42] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday we'll look into the specifics of the brain....how it works and what consequences this has[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok Itsem..agreed![13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your particiaption....[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: :) thank you Professor[13:43] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed[13:43] Bejiita Imako: was nice again Herman[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:43] Sartre Placebo: thx herman[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: thank you professor[13:43] Jozen Ocello: thanks[13:43] Bejiita Imako: interesting topic as usual ㋡[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Professor[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: as always[13:43] itsme Frederix: thx, and we will look into the specifics of the brain as we think it as and how we think it works. I guess the brain keeps that secret for us.![13:43] Quizzle Mode: Thank you Professor[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: hope I can make it on time tuesday i will be out of town[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: with the computer[13:43] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: so if internet works i will be here[13:43] herman Bergson: Great you made is so early Rodney![13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: yes nice![13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)[13:44] Rodney Handrick: yes, why yes I did![13:44] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you all![13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡
Welcome all. It is a great joy to see you all back again.I hope your vacation was as good as mine.Here in front of me on my desk in RL I have a book. Its title is "A materialist Theory of Mind" (1968) by D.M. Armstronng. I bought is September 24 in 1976 and it cost me the fortune of almost US$20. And that was a fortune for a student in those days. The flap text begins thus: " Professor Armstrong defends the view, currently much discussed by analytical philosophers, that mental states are purely physical states of the brain."What already was on my bookshelves since July 1973 was "The 'Mental and the 'Physical' " (1958) by Herbert Feigl. I think it was my main inspiration philosophically.This was basic reading for the subject of my thesis for graduation then in 1976. And here I am again with the same thesis. (….smiles….) Did I never get further in all these years. Didn't I get wiser? We'll see.Much has changed since 1976, especially regarding our knowledge of the brain. The mind is no longer only a philosophical topic. Other sciences have entered the arena. I don't mean just psychology, but especially neurobiology and neuroscience. Now we have men like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennet. They have changed the philosophical scenery considerably.For me this is going to be a special project. It is not just an academic presentation of a subject with many different points of view possible. It will be a personal stand. I will stand for a materialist theory of mind.This means that the series of lectures I have scheduled will be a kind of argumentation to make my point. However, it is not my intention that at the end of the semester you all have to say: yes you are right.The lectures and the research for them will be more of a test, a searching for the answer whether the materialist view is tenable or not, to clarify the arguments in favor and against this view.To find out what happens, when you take a materialist interpretation of the mind as the most plausible one, which philosophical questions you then still have to face.But my starting point will be the assumption that a materialist theory of the mind is our best choice to understand ourselves as conscious beings.The subject with which I will begin this project is the concept of "Supersense" as explained by Bruce M. Hood in his book "Supersense: Why do we believe in the unbelievable" (2009)We thus, to begin with, deal with the phenomenon of the supernatural in our existence and try to understand it. We'll investigate the balance between rationality and our irrational ideas.The next stage will be a journey through the latest developments in neurosciences. I even allow begging the question by spending time on discussing the biological roots of our emotions.After this materialist introduction we'll begin with investigating the history of the philosophy of mind. What questions and answers have been put forward regarding consciousness, the mind, the Self, personal identity since the early days of philosophy.I guess our final station will become the question, whether this materialist starting point has helped us to find satisfactory answers to our philosophical questions or not.This is not going to be an easy project. That I can promise you. Not easy for you and certainly not easy for me, but I hope that is will achieve its main goal: that it will be entertaining and especially educational for all of us.Thank you.The Discussion[13:22] Adriana Jinn: whaooo [13:22] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully suspect this will be one helluva good time. :)[13:22] Adriana Jinn: that is a program[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes I hope I wont let you down ...[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and do you have any references for us to read on the web???[13:23] Repose Lionheart: a great adventure, this[13:23] herman Bergson: Well ..for a start find Bruce Hood...[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: you have my mind clicking already, Herman[13:23] herman Bergson: There is a lot of him, also on youtube...[13:23] herman Bergson: Sounds good Aristotle ^_^[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:24] herman Bergson: You also can start looking around for neurobiology or neurosciences...[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMgaQ-lCkio[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:24] herman Bergson: English Wikipedia is ok for a start[13:25] herman Bergson: It is gonna be a lot of work ^_^[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess[13:25] herman Bergson: That is for sure[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: as usual[13:26] herman Bergson: It seems that nobody has any questions about my chosen starting point?![13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: the origin of our selves have occupied a lot of my thinking[13:27] Adriana Jinn: well very interesting but vast[13:27] herman Bergson: Well...you might find something here then Aristotle[13:27] Adriana Jinn: wide subject[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: if the brain is the seat of consciouness, where do you think its root resides in the physical brain?[13:28] herman Bergson: The brain generates consciousness[13:28] herman Bergson: no brain no consciousness :-)[13:29] herman Bergson: That is why I speak of the mystery of the brain.....[13:29] Jozen Ocello: and perhaps also generate subconsciousness?[13:29] herman Bergson: and not the mystery of the mind or consciousness[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: but could it be similar to 'the computer in the hands of the human'?[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: without the computer no online[13:30] herman Bergson: The computer is the human, Aristotle[13:30] herman Bergson: The subconscious is a whole different story...[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a theoretical construct invented by the psychoanalytical school[13:31] Repose Lionheart: yes, agree[13:31] herman Bergson: it is a concept of a higher theoretical level than I want to start from[13:32] Jozen Ocello: i see[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: smiling, it is my suggestion that the mind needs the machine (brain) to communicate and direct the body only[13:32] herman Bergson: the subconscious presupposes an extensive theory about what the mind is..[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: this will be a long discussion every week i think[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle...this going to be a fight....^_^[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: the cart and the horse, which is in front? :)[13:33] herman Bergson: The debate about dualism and monism....[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, I am excited :)[13:33] herman Bergson: You sound dualistic in your statements :-)[13:33] Jozen Ocello: this makes the class more interesting, I suppose :)[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:33] Adriana Jinn: yes exciting[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: unless we fall of track![13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, maybe even quadralistic LOL[13:34] herman Bergson: You may give a lecture on that Aristotle ^_^[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I look forward to attaining more data[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, I may scare folks away[13:36] herman Bergson: Well..the main development in philosophy of mind is, I think, that the materialist point of view is discussed more openly now and that more sciences are involved in that debate...[13:36] herman Bergson: A big change...[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I think so, but I worry about sciences becoming religious in their posture[13:37] itsme Frederix: skeptic magazine vol.15 2009 .. has an artivcle about Bruce[13:37] herman Bergson: We will get to that debate Aristotle....[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[13:37] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see how we think about science....[13:38] herman Bergson: especially related to our supersense[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yes[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it is hard to keep the subjective at bay[13:38] herman Bergson: Is that article online Itsme?[[13:39] herman Bergson: Phew....the kick off.....[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ok[13:40] herman Bergson: I will do my utmost to make this project work for you ( and me)[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: :) a bright step forward[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: very nice[13:40] herman Bergson: So....thank you al for your attention and get ready for next Tuesday :-)[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: Tuesday we begin!![13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect very strongly you will not disappoint, Professor[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: good to be back[13:41] Adriana Jinn: looking forward to it[13:41] Jozen Ocello: ah is it on Tuesday from next week onwards?[13:41] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: and see all the old students and the new ones[13:41] Adriana Jinn: thank you professor[13:41] Jozen Ocello: thanks Professor :)[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you, Prof[13:41] Jozen Ocello: see you all next Tuesday[13:41] Josiane Llewellyn: Thanks Professor[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:41] SonolaLuna Greymoon: :) danke professor[13:41] herman Bergson: every Tuesday and Thursday at 1 PM SL time, Jozen[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:41] Jozen Ocello: ah i see[13:41] Jozen Ocello: thanks :)[13:41] herman Bergson: Thank you all...:-)[13:41] Adriana Jinn: bye bye all and thanks again[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: ye Adriana[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: bye[13:42] itsme Frederix: I'm already reading - see you nex week![13:42] Beertje Beaumont: bye Herman[13:42] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje :-)[13:42] herman Bergson: ok Itsme[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: good bye folks, and thanks again Herman[13:43] Repose Lionheart: bye[13:43] Jozen Ocello: bye everyone[13:43] herman Bergson: my pleasure Aristotle ^_^[13:43] Sartre Placebo: thx herman and bye everyone[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-)[13:43] herman Bergson: bye Bergie
