skip to main |
skip to sidebar
After our intriguing questions about substance dualism, let's turn to the more traditional objections against this form of dualism.The substance dualist makes two claims about the mind. One: Mind and body are radically different kinds of substances.Two: Mind and body causally interact.These two claims are in tension. If mind and body are supposed to radically different, how can they causally interact?This objection was first put to Descartes by his contemporary, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618 - 1680). Descartes' replies were highly evasive.He couldn't do anything else because he had no answer. In an attempt to find the answer he even did physical research on brains and in there he found the pineal gland, which he declared to be the point of connection between body and mind.Unfortunately this is the only explanation we have got. In the physical world all kinds of different substances exist. Sunshine can heat metal, for instance.Two very different kinds of physical substances: kind of electromagnetic radiation against an assembly of atoms. Yet physics can tell us in considerable detail about the way light affects metal.A substance dualist like the "inventor" of this metaphysics, Descartes himself, however, can provide no details at all about the way the mind and the brain affect each other.A good theory of mind should be able to explain a number of basic aspects of our mental states. For instance, (1) some mental states are caused by states of the world.(2) Some mental states are caused by actions. (3) some mental states cause other mental states. (4) some mental states are conscious. (5) Some mental states are about things in the world. (6) Some mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.What is striking about substance dualism is the extend to which it fails to illuminate the items on this list. The first two can already not be answered by the substance dualist.Substance dualism has to face more fundamental questions.The "Cogito, ergo sum" is a kind of "Here I am" statement. But this statement has a weak point: it is only ME who is there.Are you there too? How can I achieve knowledge of other minds? How can I know that other people have minds, since the only mind to which I have direct access is my own mind?The body is a physical object, controlled and determined by the laws of physics. If the mind is free, but the body is determined, it looks as if the freedom of the mind, the freedom of will, makes no difference.And there is the danger of skepticism. Everything can be a delusion, except my "cogito". It means that I am imprisoned in my own mind. If I am locked in my own experiences, how can I really know anything of an external world.?It may be clear that substance dualism is not an adequate explanation of what exists in our universe. Of course we know that we have a mind, that we have consciousness.But the idea that this mind is a special substance, which only interacts with our physical body, is hard to defend, since there is not the slightest evidence, that such a mental substance exists.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: So much for substance dualisme...[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:23] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions or give your remarks...the floor is yours[13:25] herman Bergson: This all sounded familiar to you all...[13:25] herman Bergson: Piece of cake?[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no not at all[13:25] Doodus Moose: i took a stress relief course....[13:25] Astronomer Somerset: ok our entire existence our experiences are unique to us because we experience and recognize each experiences according to our own internal model of the world and how we interpret them[13:25] Mick Nerido: This mental substance is akin to soul, not physically verifible[13:25] Qwark Allen: is there a possibility of a 3rd possibility?[13:26] Qwark Allen: non polarized[13:26] herman Bergson: well...[13:26] herman Bergson: if something is not physically verifiable, how can we have knowledge of it then???[13:26] Qwark Allen: seems a bit computer language , zero and one[13:27] Mick Nerido: Indirect evidence?[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: herman a fish swims in water but is it physically aware of the water in which it swims[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Qwark, the first problem me have been that we began counting.....a body and a soul and a mind...[13:28] Qwark Allen: it`s not really a dualism then[13:28] herman Bergson: what do you mean by indirect evidence Mick?[13:28] Astronomer Somerset: we as humans are currently traveling at over 400 miles an hour but we are not physically aware of the fact[13:28] herman Bergson: If you take reality as One, as Spinoza already did, there is no counting...no dualism...[13:29] herman Bergson: no Astro, but you could explain why that is in full detail I guess[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i can but i could not prove it without taking the observer off the planet and showing him the world revolving[13:30] Qwark Allen: the more i think about it, more logical seems to have 3 parts[13:30] herman Bergson: which three parts do you see Qwark?[13:30] Mick Nerido: Dualism requires no explanation other than it is what seem to explain my personal experience.[13:31] Qwark Allen: body, mind and soul[13:31] herman Bergson: hmmmm MIck.....[13:31] herman Bergson: Dualistic thinking is so deeply embeded in our culture.....[13:31] Qwark Allen: wherever you look in nature , 3 seems to be the answer to the the all thing[13:31] herman Bergson: religion plays an important part in that....[13:32] Astronomer Somerset: herman is a schiziophrenic aware of their other selfs[13:32] Qwark Allen: a tree have the body, leaves and the liquid to feed the leaves[13:32] herman Bergson: The magic of numbers Qwark....[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: and language[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: i still think language separates this[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: the 3 parts[13:32] herman Bergson: you also could say that a tree consists of billions of cells all with their own function...[13:33] Qwark Allen: was just a thought that dualism maybe , a little rationalist[13:33] Qwark Allen: to simplistic to explain[13:33] herman Bergson: the separation in three parts is a product of your brain , not a special property of the tree, I would say[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...:-)[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: herman - thats very buddhistic now[13:34] herman Bergson: I dont mind labels Ciska...[13:34] Mick Nerido: The brain has evolved to the point of conscious thought that seperates it from other physical reality[13:34] herman Bergson: But I start with regarding reality as one matter[13:35] Astronomer Somerset: a computer is a true dualist system it has physical hardware and seperate software and the two radically different components interact to produce something more than the two parts[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes mick....our brain can organize our experiences of the external world...put a kind of order into it to handle it[13:35] Mick Nerido: What is this matter that can think?[13:36] herman Bergson: THAT is our MAIN question Mick...yes![13:36] Astronomer Somerset: and computers are modeled on us[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Astro, but only in a primitive way...[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll get to that subject.....[13:37] Astronomer Somerset: our physical bodies are the hardware and our thought and emmotions are the software s[13:37] herman Bergson: You know Astro....[13:37] Mick Nerido: Science my prove dualism wrong but there is such a difference fromhow are brain works than any other organ[13:37] herman Bergson: through history people always have taken something from their reality to make it a model of how man is constructed...[13:38] herman Bergson: Leibniz compared the human being with a windmill....high tech in his time....[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: i am only offering explanations to prove dualism is a possibility[13:38] herman Bergson: Later the brain was compared to a switchboard for telephone....[13:38] herman Bergson: today we love to compare ourselves with computers...[13:39] herman Bergson: Historically an interesting phenomenon....[13:39] Mick Nerido: We build the way were are made...[13:39] herman Bergson: Since Descartes time we love to see the human body as a machine for instance[13:40] herman Bergson: But what does it teach us about the mind body problem....?[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: ok so how do you explain such things as schitzophrenia in a pure singularity existence[13:40] herman Bergson: that is a disfunction of the brain....[13:41] herman Bergson: I don't know if we have all explanations for the phenomenon already...[13:41] herman Bergson: But we know that there goes something wrong in the brain[13:41] Astronomer Somerset: but each separate state is a separate interpretation of that persons existence and i have seen such people with both male and female character traits[13:42] Mick Nerido: Joan d' Arc was probably schizo[13:42] herman Bergson: oh yes...anything is possible if the brain starts short circuiting[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Mick....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: including dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: We have the "God Helmet" now created by that Canadian neuroscientist...[13:43] herman Bergson: Thsi helmet can create such "religious" experiences....[13:44] herman Bergson: Forgot the name...[13:44] Mick Nerido: Is it always a mis function then?[13:44] herman Bergson: I gave a lecture about that[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: good question Mick[13:44] herman Bergson: I would say yes....[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: well- that is based on our values[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: of course[13:44] Mick Nerido: She was a great leader...[13:45] herman Bergson: no..not based on values...but on knowledge13:45] herman Bergson: That she was a great leader doesn't proof a thing Mick...[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge of the past[13:45] herman Bergson: except that she was a great leader[13:46] Mick Nerido: Many saints died as for their belies, were they nuts?[13:46] Mick Nerido: beliefs[13:46] herman Bergson: On the other hand you also can say that Joan was efficiently used by those who were in power...untill she became unconvenient....and simply was murdered by those who were in power[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: herman may i ask do you have any physical proof that dualism does not exist or are you prophiciating your own interpretation and beliefs[13:47] herman Bergson: Well Mick...for that I have only one question....[13:47] herman Bergson: Why aren't there saints anymore today.....[13:47] Mick Nerido: Herman I will nominate you![13:48] herman Bergson: smiles[13:48] herman Bergson: forget it..[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): mother Teresa?[13:48] herman Bergson: No...our view has changed....[13:48] herman Bergson: no Beertje...[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: well- thats exactly what i meant before herman[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge alters[13:48] herman Bergson: I mean saints that see Maria or Jesus himself or things like that[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: and with alteration we judge differently[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: some people would state the Dalai Lama as on like that[13:49] herman Bergson: When somebody would tell us that he had spoken to Jesus personally and has a message for us, we would at least frown at the person....[13:49] Astronomer Somerset: those are visionaries herman not saints[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes - we lable them differently[13:49] Mick Nerido: The mind can overrule what is best for our bodies and our loves, a kind of dualism[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: just different language - agree with you there #Astro[13:50] Astronomer Somerset: to be a saint they must have performed miricales[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: and what is a miracal is again defined by values and knowledge at that very moment[13:50] herman Bergson: According to ROme..indeed Astro..you evenhave to have performed three miracles![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: yes you do[13:51] herman Bergson: That rules me out, Mick....I haven't performed a single miracle[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: one could call leonardo or copernicus or newton visionaries but non are saints[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): after death Herman...[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: michael angelo claims his image of god was a vison[13:52] herman Bergson: I don't know what you mean by visionaries Astro, unless you mean...excellent scientists[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: every scientist needs a vision[13:52] herman Bergson: imagination Ciska...[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: star trek beamer leads to scientist searching for it in swiss[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: no a visionary is someone who experiences a sudden realisation outside of a normal experience herman[13:52] herman Bergson: drive[13:52] Mick Nerido: It's a miracle getting me to understand philosophy![13:53] Ciska Riverstone: where is the difference herman?[13:53] Qwark Allen: ehehhe nice mick[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: *gggg* mick ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: Cool Mick...two to go for me then ^_^[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: count me in ;)[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...were are we?[13:54] herman Bergson: Done with substance dualism?[13:54] Mick Nerido: Humor is only possible in higher brains, why?[13:55] herman Bergson: That is because of self relection Mick[13:55] herman Bergson: Humor is always making a joke of yourself...[13:55] herman Bergson: animals have no ability to self reflection[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to go[13:56] herman Bergson: They can look in a mirror, but only we can laugh at the sight :-)[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very interesting as usual[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: bye qwark[13:56] Qwark Allen: thank you hermann[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark![13:56] herman Bergson: Give my regards to Gemma[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not in the mornings Herman,,pfew....those wrinkles..[13:56] Doodus Moose: self reflection on ones' self reflection?[13:56] herman Bergson: Just then you should laugh Beertje...[13:57] herman Bergson: Friends....[13:57] herman Bergson: this was again a nice discussion[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman - very interesting as always[13:57] herman Bergson: I don't think we are done yet, so next Thursday same time same place ![13:58] Mick Nerido: Very nice discussion, thanks all![13:58] herman Bergson: yes thank you all...[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)))[13:58] Doodus Moose: Thanks indeed, Professor![13:58] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:58] isobelle Garnet: very interesting thank you[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[13:59] herman Bergson: You too ciska![13:59] Doodus Moose: byeeee!!!!!!![13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight all:))[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye:)[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: bye herman[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Astro...[14:02] isobelle Garnet: bye thank you[14:02] herman Bergson: You're ok Alaya?[14:03] herman Bergson: You are ^_^[14:03] herman Bergson: bye[14:03] Teleport completed from http://slu
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
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
Today we have arrived at a quintessential point in our quest into the Mystery of the Brain. Today we'll begin the study of materialism.We can start with two questions:1. What does it MEAN to say that everything is physical?You could call this an ontological question. We ask what there is in reality.and 2. Is it TRUE to say that everything is physical?This you could regard as an epistemological question. Here we ask how we can obtain knowledge of the material world.The first question, depending on the emphasis, can be understood in two ways. One: What does it mean that EVERYTHING is physicalTwo: what does it mean that everything is PHYSICAL.As an ontology materialism has along history as I mentioned in the previous lecture, not only in Western philosophy, but also in Indian philosophy.In both cultures it is scorned by all kinds of religious groups. From their perspective for good reasons of course. There is no room for the supernatural in a physical world.In many previous lectures I have shown you by explaining the phenomenon of our Supersense and by showing results of brain research and neurobiological findings, how we can interpret supernatural things in a material world.Let me start with a general description of this ontological position. Eventually I hope to give you an acceptable answer to our two questions.Materialism is the general theory that the ultimate constituents of reality are material or physical bodies, elements or processes. It is a form of monism in that it holds that everything in existence is reducible to what is material or physical in nature. It is opposed to dualistic theories which claim that body and mind are distinct, and directly antithetical to a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter. It is hostile to abstract objects, if these are viewed as more than just a manner of speaking . An implication of materialism is that the diverse qualitative experiences we have are ultimately reducible to quantitative changes in objects or in our physiological functioning. All the properties of things, including persons, are reducible to properties of matter.Although the terms referring to psychic states such as intention, belief, desire and consciousness itself have a different sense and use than terms referring to material events, a consistent materialist would deny that mentalisticterms have reference to anything other than physical events or physiological changes in our brains. The enormous advances in the sciences have contributed storehouses of empirical data that are often used to support materialism. I already have presented a lot of this evidence to you.Many philosophers have been attracted to materialism both because of its reductive simplicity and its association with scientific knowledge.So, let's investigate what materialism has to offer and how tenable this viewpoint regarding ourselves and the world around us is.The discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you.....[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours as always :-)[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: smile..without our material body we have no idea of supersense[13:24] Bejiita Imako: wb Berg[13:25] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty...[13:25] Mick Nerido: Materilists would say there is ONLY the body[13:25] herman Bergson: Supersense is just a name for our inclination to believe in the supernatural[13:26] herman Bergson: Mr. STevens!!!!!![13:26] herman Bergson: This is not a dancehall[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: hm..one can say a lot words.. but as mentioned in former lectures..this doesn't proof the contrary:)[13:26] Evie1: lol[13:26] Evie1: Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.[13:26] Stevens Beaumont: i am sorry[13:26] Stevens Beaumont: i stop immediately[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: steve..lokk for stop all animations:9[13:27] herman Bergson: move it...plz!!! go outside![13:27] Mick Nerido: Yes Evie[13:27] Evie1: I think he is moving it[13:27] druth Vlodovic: ok, one argument against non-materialism, in regards to having souls, is the effect that physical/chemical changes to the brain can have on personality[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: why is that against materialismedruth[13:28] druth Vlodovic: presumably a spirit/soul would have it's own personality and be immune to physical alterations[13:28] herman Bergson: What do you mean by that Druth?[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur, my question too...[13:28] druth Vlodovic: um, I meant the opposite[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: grin no reason to yellat her....[13:29] Mick Nerido: There is no scientific evidence for anything behind the material world[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: smile..mick ..may be scientific evidence is not all the answers?[13:30] Evie1: The ontological doctrine that states that everything that exists is, or depends on, matter ....[13:30] druth Vlodovic: you're just afraid of excess electrons finding your computer[13:30] Mick Nerido: true Baldur[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: well evie we can't deny mater[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hmm frying the drive is no good[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Evie1 ...what actually exists is only matter[13:31] herman Bergson: and states the matter is in[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: no what we can see as exsistant is matter...[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: wehat our senses can't grasp .. could be there too[13:32] herman Bergson: We'll elaborate on this subject enough to understand the strong and weak points of this ontology[13:33] herman Bergson: .[13:33] herman Bergson: It probably doesn't seem to bother you at all that the supernatural is trashed???![13:33] BALDUR Joubert: smile..but we have to use our mind -brain with what its got..and that is matter...[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: not trashed..just kept aside as long as we don't know more[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur...that matters a lot :-))[13:34] herman Bergson: ohh....[13:34] Mick Nerido: Belief is different then proof[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: so we should stick to the matter and leave the supernaturalxoption open:9[13:35] herman Bergson: You expect knowledge of the supernatural in the future, Baldur?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: I guess[13:35] Evie1: does materialism mean the end of spirituality ?[13:35] herman Bergson: That is an odd idea....leave the supernatural open[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: lol.. i never expect anything..but thingsxmight happen......[13:35] herman Bergson: That depends Evie1....[13:35] Bejiita Imako: for one thin we can for example deny the supernatural properties of magic[13:35] druth Vlodovic: spirituality can be the exploration of self and finding peace and meaning in your life[13:36] druth Vlodovic: without the inherent politics of religion[13:36] Bejiita Imako: cause thats breaking of physical laws and that we know is impossible[13:36] herman Bergson: ontologically yes, as a psychological feature of the brain no[13:36] herman Bergson: Our brain is wired in such a way, that we are just inclined to believe in supernatural things[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: bej... quantum physics have no physical law exlanation:9[13:37] herman Bergson: this is based on the feature of the brain/mind....to want to see structure in its environment....the drive to explain...[13:37] Bejiita Imako: qantum physics is a bit strange but still to magic[13:37] Evie1: hmmmm[13:37] herman Bergson: and where there is no explanation..the mind comes up with one[13:38] Bejiita Imako: but what quantum physics is is fixed numbers with nothing in between[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: well herman when man started to think.. abstract-he could think of everything.. even supernatural[13:38] druth Vlodovic: the supernatural is usually simpler and more satisfying than the real[13:38] Mick Nerido: It's a good story[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: smile bej-the nothing in between is the interesting point:)[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....that is what makes it so attractive...[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: like good sex druth?[13:39] Evie1: The mind governing all has another vibration within the whole aspect. The mind focuses our energies to a material outcome of all our experiences. Or it focuses for a spiritual outcome of our experiences. The two seldom work together to produce an outcome of growth within the spirit.[13:39] druth Vlodovic: umm[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i d say supernaturality is so our brains can get relaxed and not think itself to pieces about things we cant understand for the moment[13:39] Bejiita Imako: then we make up our own explanations and rest our minds on them[13:39] herman Bergson: I would agree Bejiita :-)[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: explanation is the word bej...,language and communication[13:40] herman Bergson: .[13:40] Evie1: but when we focus on the material things we forget about the spiritual side[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:40] Mick Nerido: We are finite beings in an infinite universe..[13:40] herman Bergson: I wouldn't agree with that Mick....[13:41] Mick Nerido: smiles[13:41] herman Bergson: Infinity is a concept created by our own mind.....not by definition something that exists[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: now..we all werre babies once..what did we focus on....and what did our ancestors- say 1000000 years ago focus on..[13:41] Evie1: true[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ahö[13:42] Mick Nerido: I know it is impossible to explain therefore the supernatural[13:42] herman Bergson smiles[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I suspect that we have connections to reality that we don't really know about[13:42] Clerisse Beeswing: food shelter warmth important[13:42] herman Bergson: maybe the concept of the infinite is the supernatural part of mathematics :-)[13:42] Bejiita Imako: might be[13:42] druth Vlodovic: they are finding that time and matter aren't fixed things, it would be odd if we evolved without the capacity to take advantage of that[13:43] Mick Nerido: True herman[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: take advantage? how -and for what?[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...as you all see...[13:43] herman Bergson: studying materialism is gonna be fun :-)[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hhe[13:44] Bejiita Imako: might be for sure[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: sure..we'll be talking about ourselves:)[13:44] herman Bergson: YEs Baldur...:-)[13:44] herman Bergson: And we are bloody interesting people :-)[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[13:44] Clerisse Beeswing: true[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:45] Evie1: So how can everything be physical ... surely it cannot be[13:45] druth Vlodovic: I'm not convinced that all "supernatural" events have no basis in fact, but I'm not sure we need a "spirit realm" to explain it all[13:45] Mick Nerido: Never boring![13:45] herman Bergson: Wait.....[13:45] herman Bergson: Evie1[13:45] Clerisse Beeswing: true in some ways[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: isn't spirit realm a product we created druth?[13:45] Evie1: call em Evie please ... smiles[13:45] herman Bergson: Why can it not be the case that everything is physical?[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: like shower cream'[13:46] herman Bergson: Where does the idea come from that it cant be so?[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: easy...from not understanding.......[13:47] druth Vlodovic: from wanting meaning and purpose[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: but able to think about it[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: and due to communication[13:47] herman Bergson: then the supernatural is just our imagination...[13:47] Evie1: hmmm I meat everything has to be physical sorry (including consciousness[13:47] herman Bergson: That is ok with me....[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: that can't be the conclusion herman....[13:48] herman Bergson: ohhhhhhh....consciousness.......[13:48] druth Vlodovic: we used to imagine people flying through the air, silly really[13:48] herman Bergson: Still a big big hurdle to take Evie![13:48] herman Bergson: .[13:48] herman Bergson: on brooms, Druth?[13:49] druth Vlodovic: ok, I haven't gotten my broom up to speed yet :)[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: well i think we should stick to the question: what does materialism mean to philosophy.. old and new[13:49] herman Bergson: I have a Nimbus 2000 ^_^[13:49] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: if we accept it. shall we ignore plato and aristoteles'[13:50] CONNIE Eichel: :)[13:50] Mick Nerido: Flying is physical now was only imaginary to our ancestors[13:50] druth Vlodovic: lucky[13:50] Clerisse Beeswing: lol cool herman[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...they just envied the birds[13:50] Bejiita Imako: im unsure if id dare to fly on a small stick[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:51] Bejiita Imako: seems not stable at all[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: with druth i would:)[13:51] herman Bergson grins at Baldur[13:51] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[13:51] herman Bergson: Don't be so obvious Baldur ^_^[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: grins..i thought i said something more intelligent before :)[13:51] druth Vlodovic: you stay away from small sticks Baldur[13:52] herman Bergson: But I share your opinion tho :-))[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: ok druth... sigh[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...I think we are all set for this new chapter....[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:52] Bejiita Imako: gess so[13:52] herman Bergson: Baldur has to take off on his broom I guess....so time to dismiss class[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation and nice discussion[13:53] Clerisse Beeswing: ahhh I just got here[13:53] druth Vlodovic: thank you herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: another interesting time here ㋡[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor :)[13:53] herman Bergson: I am sorry Clerisse....[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman it was very intersting:)[13:53] Clerisse Beeswing: thanks professor[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you Beertje and CONNIE[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: :)[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: time to go now, kisses :)[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Connie[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye CONNIE[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye :)[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all soon again[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)) and ty class! see u thursday[13:57] BALDUR Joubert: well..may bei shouldl.ea veyou with the girls herman:)[13:58] druth Vlodovic: I dunno, is it safe?[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: lol... you asking me for my opinion?[13:58] herman Bergson: Ohhh....you are right Baldur...you are the only man left next to me :-)[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: ok i get the maessage lol[13:59] herman Bergson: Look at that...another girl... Hi oola ^_^[13:59] oola Neruda: hi herman
