290: The Brain and Morality 1

The doctor plans to execute experiments on one of Jeff's children, but he wants Jeff to choose on which child should be experimented. Jeff has 24 hours to bring one of his children to the laboratory. If he refuses to bring one of the children to the laboratory the doctor will execute experiments on both children.

A moral dilemma. The question you now get is:
Jeff brings on of his children to the laboratory is 1) forbidden, 2) permissible or 3) madatory.

This is an example of the moral dilemmas you have to decide on when you participate in "The Moral Sense Test" of The Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, which is a department of Harvard University.
Main investigator of this project is professor Marc D. Hauser.

Maybe you want to try it yourself. At the end of the lecture I'll give you the URL. Answering 32 questions takes about 30 minutes.

This research project is still online and continuing, but there are already some tentative observations. It seems that moral intuition, according to Hauser, is uniform all over the world.

Men and women of 13 to 70, people who say that they are deeply religious and others who say to be atheist or just not religious, high educated people, people with minimal education,

non of these factors seem to have an influence on the answer to the question when people find it morally acceptable to do harm to other people.

Most interesting fact that came forward is the fact that a religious background has no influence on the choices people make in the test.

In parts of Europe it may be different, but in the US it is generally believed that morality simply originates and stays because of religion.

Here in the US the myth exists that we would be completely amoral without religion, Hauser says. And next he tries to show that education and culture have no influence on moral decision making.

Of course there are differences in everyday morals among different cultures, but this research project indicates that there are certain categories of moral intuitions that could be universal.

It appears that from our birth on we posses a series of universal principles. These are very basic principles. For instance, the Intention-principle:

most of the time people regard harm that is done on purpose morally worse than when the harm is a by-product of an action that had another intention.

The action- principle: Damage is morally more reprehensible when it is inflicted because of acting actively than when it is inflicted because you refrained from taking action.

The contact-principle: Harm caused by direct contact with the victim is morally worse than the same harm inflicted without direct contact with the victim.

These are tentative observations based on the results of The Moral Sense test. On the site there are not yet final results published. This all is very recent and new research.

There is a parallel of ideas here with the ideas of Avram Noam Chomsky (1928 - ), who studied the linguistic development of the human being.

Chomsky simply observed that while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic data, the human child will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability.

Chomsky labeled whatever the relevant capacity the human has which the cat lacks the "language acquisition device" (LAD) and suggested that one of the tasks for linguistics should be to figure out

what the LAD is and what constraints it puts on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that would result from these constraints are often termed "universal grammar" or UG.

In the same way Marc Hauser believes that the human being, based on the wiring of his brain, also possesses a kind of Moral Acquisition Device.

In the 50s Chomsky started his research in linguistics and still there is little known about the biology of language and how it is embedded in the mechanisms of the brain.

The Moral Sense test only started in 2003 and is an interesting initiative to use the internet to reach a global audience, but it isn't that easy to find universal brain features with a test, which is not free of cultural bias.
See http://www.jsecjournal.com/articles/volume1/issue3/Wierzbicka13.pdf

For the test see:
http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/



The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: This for a start on this subject :-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours now :-)
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: just been wondering all the time.. we have a new subject then.. no more brains.. no more understanding how things happend or could have
[13:26] herman Bergson: Ok this is not so confronting as last lecture :-)
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: morals and brain is the subject?
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: The Contact Principle is interesting to ponder in regards to current and future drone warfare.
[13:27] herman Bergson: the main subject is the brain Baldur……and how everything we are is wired into that brain....
[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: in regards to the invention of the bow too ari?
[13:27] herman Bergson: I was thinking about that too Aristotle...
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: ok.. morals wired in the brain? there you loose me...
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: well, to a degree yes, but a soldier can sit in the US and kill folk she does not ever see
[13:28] herman Bergson: Sending a drone with bombs over Taliban positions is almost a video game
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, exactly Herman
[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: the extension of childs play
[13:28] herman Bergson: Ok Baldur...an important point.....
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: it is still terrible too many civilians killed or injured
[13:29] herman Bergson: Let's elaborate on Baldur's remark...
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: well for dchingis khan's troups it was like a video game too.. only more rl and less sl..
[13:29] herman Bergson: The brain causes the mind...
[13:29] herman Bergson: A feature of the mind is morality.....so the brain causes that we have a morality
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: true.. and there are basic wirings in the brain we don't control.. so far i agree..
[13:30] herman Bergson: well...we hardly know how this all works in the brain....
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: morality as a feature is not necessarily a basic one.. like survival -procreation.. fear.. feling well etc
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: well they are learning
[13:30] herman Bergson: I'll get to that in a next lecture
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: so much research is going on
[13:31] herman Bergson: I would say it is a basic one Baldur....
[13:31] herman Bergson: It is basic to the social relations in a group....
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: i disagree.. you said moral intuition is uniform.. i say intuition is uniform
[13:31] herman Bergson: so it is a survival strategy to be moral
[[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: in a sense yes -but developed in a grpoup- so cultural..
[13:32] herman Bergson: what do you mean by intuition is uniform?
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: how unromantic to think the brain has a written depository of morals.....love must be just a stored bit
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: smile.. you wrote MORAL intuition is uniform
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: your words
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:33] herman Bergson: I mean that basic moral ideas that pop up in the mind seem to have a uniform character in the sense that is seems to be general human trait
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is what this Moral Sense Test tries to verify
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: hm.. i think the basic idea though acceptable as a scientific experience cannot lead us to universal conclusion-- and far from brain activity
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: could it possibly be that morals are psychologically inherited?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Like I referred to this Action -principle and intention-principle...
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: you said language and cats.. but animals have a language.. they need it to survive..
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: intention.. do you understand a will there or a wiring..
[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: which brings up the question of cats having minds? do they?
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: if you had one ari you would know:)
[13:36] herman Bergson: Animals have ways of communication...you hardly can call that a language...
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I have two, if there is a more selfish animal I do not kno wof it
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: hm.. language is first of all sounds to communicate.. no matter how differeciated it is..
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well cats have minds....like chimps have too....
[13:37] herman Bergson: they have feelings...
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: one can hurt a cat's feelings ?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Descartes and many after him then till recent saw animals as machines
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: sure
[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I doubt you can
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: ok.. and homo heidelbergensis saw it as food
[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle there is a series of evolutionary levels of the brain...
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: well i think the cat is aware of something it does not like....
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: evolutionary or learning processes?
[13:38] herman Bergson: I dont think you cant hurt cat feelings..:-)
[13:39] herman Bergson: But You can hurt the feelings of certain primates, apes
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: you can.. some people study animals.. you'd be surprised
[13:39] Qwark Allen: they complain, when you are some time far from home
[13:39] herman Bergson: No evolutionary levels of development...
[13:39] Qwark Allen: ask gemma about her cats
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: omg yes
[13:39] herman Bergson: in that our brain is the highest development level
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: cats will pretend to love you as long as they get what the want, if not they will move on
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ys
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: evolutionary- like modifications of brain structures?
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i know people like that too ari
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: :))
[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: yes indeed
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: an animal that can pretend ari think what that means..
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: can pretend
[13:40] herman Bergson: To give you an example how the feelings of an animal canbe hurt...
[13:40] Qwark Allen: we tend to think about some aspects of human behavior, as humans only
[13:40] herman Bergson: there is a certain species of apes...dont know the english name atm...
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: it is merely cause and effect
[13:41] herman Bergson: They did en experiment...
[13:41] Qwark Allen: and experience lately, have been proving that is not quit so
[13:41] herman Bergson: They taught the litle apes to accept a stone and then give it back to the researcher...
[13:41] Qwark Allen: there is a new book about dogs and cats about
[13:41] herman Bergson: as reward the got a piece of cucumber...
[13:41] herman Bergson: then in a next round...
[13:42] herman Bergson: number one got his piece of cucumber...
[13:42] herman Bergson: but his fellow ape he could see got a big grape.....and they are super fond of grapes...
[13:42] herman Bergson: Result...
[13:42] herman Bergson: the underpaid ape got really angry...
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: of course
[13:43] herman Bergson: threw the cucumber at the researcher....refused to cooperate etc
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: smart
[13:43] Qwark Allen: good thing
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: :) sounds like my children
[13:43] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: soi- experience and cognitive understanding. do that with 2 5 year old kids and they react the same
[13:43] herman Bergson: These were real emotions reflecting a sense of justice
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: emotions yes.. but needs cognitive
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes BAldur..but the point was..have animal feelings....yes some have
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I have a hunch primates maybe different from the rest of the annimals
[13:44] herman Bergson: They are of course
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: whales are very smart also
[13:44] herman Bergson: They
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: that goes not only for primates ari.. we are far from knowing all
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: whales and dolphins too, yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: True...
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: studies are made on mammals usually.. beyond its difficult
[13:45] herman Bergson: Some animals have a sense of a self....of identity...
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: that is true, BALDUR.....even vegetables may have feelings
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: that's the mirror test herman
[13:45] herman Bergson: They have a dolphin look in a mirror....
[13:45] herman Bergson: then they paint a dot on his nose...
[13:45] herman Bergson: Dolphin looks again...
[13:46] herman Bergson: recognizes himself and tries to wash off the dot
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:46] herman Bergson: Even an elephant does that!
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:47] Qwark Allen: i wonder about primitive man, if he does not the same first time he sees one mirror, anyway
[13:47] herman Bergson: SO the brain comes through the species in all kinds of evolutionary flavors
[13:47] herman Bergson: He must have seen his face mirrored in the water
[13:47] Qwark Allen: that is different to see a mirror
[13:48] herman Bergson: When a cat looks in a mirror is sees an opponent
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: right. but the decisive factor was the possibility to communicate not only survival patterns but abstracts-concepts
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes that is a specific feature of language....animals dont have that ability
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: that's the main difference between man and animal..
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: I can understand the motivation there, evolution has brought them to that stage and been successful in survival, instinctly they would resist rapid changes in their appearance
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: and for that we need no morals
[13:49] herman Bergson: We need morals be live socially together Baldur
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: and communication was a major evolutionary advantage for the survival..
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes but that applies to almost all species
[13:50] herman Bergson: they all communicate.....warn for danger etc.
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: wolves-- in contradiction to hobbes- don't kill their children.. give food to the weaker and so on.. so
[13:50] herman Bergson: true....
[13:50] herman Bergson: we'll get to the subject of altruism in nature too
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: we do need morals for society, but I think the morallity is not a collective decision
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: and they have -like many other higher developed animals a social live better than ours :)
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: i would like to do the survey
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: as you talked about elephants.. read about their social behavior
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: don't forget the url
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: I think he listed it already
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: how did morals come into our human world..
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: oh maybe when i crashed
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: I sorry..
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: I'm Sorry!
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: yes prob
[13:52] herman Bergson: Elephants experience compassion with each other for instance, yes
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:52] herman Bergson: Morals came into the human world by evolution Baldur...
[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: that would be morals ,wouldn't it?
[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: empathy is the seed of a moral code
[13:52] herman Bergson: it is the result of millions of years of evolution
[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: you say evolution.. i say by culture
[13:52] herman Bergson: That cant be Baldur…
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting
[13:53] herman Bergson: There first is the brain....then the culture
[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: what we have in common with elephants and others is the survival evolutionary intuitions..
[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: they have brains:)
[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: but i agree.. no morals as we understand it
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes...and they show...depending on the species similar behavior as humans...
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: have to go
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: or the humans similar behavbiors tou animals?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: i see your point hermaan
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: herman
[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Gemma
[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: unfortunately I must to my job! I wish you an immoral evening: -) - see Tuesday
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you tuesday if I can
[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum:
[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: .,¡i|¹i¡¡i¹|i¡,. .,¡i|¹i¡¡i¹|i¡,.
[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: `'¹li¡|¡|¡il¹'` `'¹li¡|¡|¡il¹'`
[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum:
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie!
[13:54] herman Bergson: here...duty calls...
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: hope you make it back hom,e through the snow berfrau:)
[13:54] Qwark Allen: l ☺ ☻ ☺ l
[13:54] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ok
[13:54] Beertje Beaumont: bye Gemma
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark
[13:55] Qwark Allen: hopefully i`ll come on time , next time
[13:55] herman Bergson: You are excuses Qwark
[13:55] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: beerje, ari man, baldur, ciska
[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: so ciska.. did herman scare you so you didn't say a word tonight?
[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: bye kwark
[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: nope... ,)
[13:55] Qwark Allen: not really, today i slept a bit after work, that is why, i was late
[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: smile.. good..
[13:56] Qwark Allen: been long days
[13:56] herman Bergson: Thank you all…We'll continue the debate next Tuesday….Class dismissed ^_^

269: Why do we believe in the supernatural?

Yesterday I was watching this picture viewer with a friend. It contains pictures I make of my Sl experiences with friends. At a certain moment the picture of Bergie showed up and the very second, that her picture appeared I received an IM…. yes from Bergie.

Isn't that odd ??!!! Do you recognize the experience? You are thinking of somebody and at that same moment the phone rings…..at the other end the person you were just thinking about.

We have great difficulty to believe that this is just coincidence… The psychologist Carl Jung even invented a word for this phenomenon (1920/1951): synchronicity.

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are apparently causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.

It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history—social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual.

Here we are at the heart of our stand: when we read something like this… about synchronicity, we see the supersense at work. In other words, this is a supernatural concept, or to refrase that, it is scientific nonsense.

Why do people believe in things that defy the laws of nature? This cannot be pure ignorance. No….because many people say that they have proof for it. Just remember what I told you about my personal experience yesterday.


And yet there is nothing supernatural at work here. Such events we call coincidences, even tho we have trouble to accept that. Probably is our brain not properly equipped to deal with coincidences and is it inclined to see supernatural forces at work here.

This makes me think of the words by Bertrand Russell in his book "The problems of Philosophy" (1912):
"Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life."

Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers..

Maybe this is one of the reasons that our daily life is loaded with all kind of supernatural considerations. Small ones like "this can not be a coincidence!", while there is no causal relation between events. And big ones: all kinds of religious and esoteric beliefs.

The American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842 -1919) already noticed that a lot of people not only believe in the reality of existence but also in what is behind it or transcends it.

Something untangle, that is not directly observed by our senses. This 'more' eludes natural explanations. It is supernatural. In fact it is the basis of all religious beliefs.

Why are we so wiling to think in that way? A first explanation is that we are educated to think that way. Isn't it funny that we are first told that Santa really exists and when we get older they call you nuts if you still believe that.

But we have a point here… We were not born believing in astrology. We have learnt to believe in it. But that doesn't answer the question why we are so WILLING to participate in rituals and ceremonies.

An answer to that could be: there is something in it for us: by believing supernatural things we can participate in society. Beliefs unite people.

But if culture is the sole source of supernatural beliefs,then we have to stop telling our children all that supernatural nonsense and educate them with scientific thinking.

Or like Richard Dawkins writes in "the God Delusion" (2006): "If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination."

There is another explanation for our WILLINGNESS to believe in the supernatural. Even if the main source would be only culture we are still left with the question WHERE emerged the first supernatural beliefs???

And an other anthropological observation is that many (isolated) cultures cherish all kinds of supernatural ideas and beliefs.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 as an example of a sentence with correct grammar (logical form) but semantics that are nonsensical.

It shows that the grammatical structure is nor enough to communicate ideas. Ideas have to fit into an existing context to be understood. For a lot of people scientific ideas and explanations are hard to understand.

On the other hand supernatural explanations and ideas are way more easier to accept, it seems. Like the grammatical correctness of a sentence is not enough to give it a meaning, so is culture and education not enough to explain the meaning of the supernatural.

For that explanation we have to look at the design of our mind, which we will do next Thursday. Thank you.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..plz geo ahead
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well I guess all was clear then ^_^
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm interesting concept for sure this
[13:23] Beertje Beaumont: i'm not that fast in reading english..
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: everyone is looking at your pictures I would guess, Prof ㋡
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:24] herman Bergson: lol...you could be right Repose..
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: what you said in the beginning have also happened to me many times
[13:24] Quizzle Mode: Are these beliefs a way that people seek meaning in (or to) life? Is it that humans have a need to "make sense of the world"? and we fall to superstition when science doesn't or can't answer.
[13:24] Jozen Ocello: i like what you said about "Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers"
[13:24] herman Bergson: Oh YES Quizzle....
[13:25] herman Bergson: Absolutely...
[13:25] herman Bergson: We cant live with the unexplained...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes that can be a possibility too i guess
[13:25] herman Bergson: just look how we think about death,....
[13:25] Mickorod Renard: maybe we are victims of being a spiecies of crative minds
[13:25] Quizzle Mode: Recent studies in the US have shown students tend to be less religious as they learn more science and this is worrying some envangelical students, already some states teach intelligent design as science alongside biology and evolution.
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: hmmmm...is the world absurd then...throwing up a creature from its heart that so needs meaning, yet there being none inherent in that world?
[13:26] herman Bergson: we have difficulty to live with the idea that death simple means..it is over..
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Quizzle..I know...I'll get to creationism soon
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Repose....
[13:27] Quizzle Mode: Repose, that comes back to the seach for what is meaning surely? if you cannot prove there is no meaning then surely you cannot argue from that position?
[13:27] herman Bergson: a fundamental question....
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: Does philosophy attempt to "answer" science? -- for example, the quantum physics idea of "non-locality" -- which WOULD explain "synchronicity" through science.
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/?view=usa&ci=9780195144086
[13:27] herman Bergson: No Bruce....
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: Was just asking a question, me ㋡
[13:27] herman Bergson: philosophy asks questions....
[13:28] herman Bergson: And as Russell says...
[13:28] herman Bergson: as soon as we have a real answer the question moves to the realm of science
[13:28] Quizzle Mode: In ancient times many philosophers where scientists, maybe philosophy is more a branch of science than humanities?
[13:29] itsme Frederix: which is like metaphycis as another word for philosophy
[13:29] herman Bergson: I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...
[13:29] herman Bergson: The philosophical question comes first....then comes science...the body of knowledge
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Ritual and religious behaviour seems to date back over a million years (to seeming ritual cannibalism among homo erectus as determined by bone studies)…whatever religion and supernatural belief are, their roots are deep and they must fulfill a very deep need in us
[13:30] herman Bergson: But what Quizzle said is more important...
[13:30] Quizzle Mode: isn't metaphysics a branch of philosophy in the way that algeba is a branch of math?
[13:30] itsme Frederix: I disagree strong Herman, science is just not all - or maybe all based on logistics but Wittgenstein "posphoned" an other sight
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes REpose.....
[13:31] herman Bergson: I know Itsme....
[13:31] herman Bergson: But it is not our subject at the moment...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: in his opinion, science and logistics is more like a tautology
[13:31] herman Bergson: What we try to understand is where supernatural beliefs come from
[13:31] itsme Frederix: which makes sense
[13:32] itsme Frederix: as son as you know its (more or less) obvious
[13:32] herman Bergson: and Quizzle pointed at our need to give meaning to life...
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: 300 year of reasoned scientific thought is a light turned on upon our world...but it may take a good while to deeply affect the evolved habits of mind of our species
[13:32] Quizzle Mode nods in agreesment with Repose
[13:32] itsme Frederix: Herman I agree its not our subject but it was so who stated this doubtfull vision
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...and that is where people like Dawkins come in...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Agree, Prof
[13:33] herman Bergson: In the God delusion he pleads for a world without religion....which menas a world without supernatural thinking...
[13:33] herman Bergson: Just imagine ...
[13:34] herman Bergson: when we are deprived of our supernatural ideas.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: and you relate that to giving meaning to life...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Philosophically an interesting situation
[13:34] herman Bergson: You could end up in existentialism as an answer for instance
[13:35] itsme Frederix: thats fast thinking ...
[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Or maybe rethinking God? a logical, moral God of Kant?
[13:35] herman Bergson: problem is Quizzle....that God belongs to the supernatural thinking...
[13:36] Quizzle Mode: surely there are arguments on both sides to prove and disprove God?
[13:36] herman Bergson: A lot of philosophers have tried to "proof " the existence of god....with no success
[13:37] itsme Frederix: I guess its more exact to say that the God idea is for some people a supernatural idea, like thunder is/was - and many ideas/intuition in childhood
[13:37] Quizzle Mode: We cannot argue from a point of no God (or otherwise) if we cannot prove he/it does not exist?
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: there is some thing i reward before about i think was called Intelligent Design, that we are so advanced that something MUST have created it , cant possibly be created by itself like that
[13:37] Jozen Ocello: that's an interesting way to see it, Quizzle :)
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: a modern god theory
[13:38] herman Bergson: Intelligent Design is also supernatural thinking...
[13:38] Quizzle Mode: (btw I do not believe in a God, but philosophy is not about arguing beliefs yes?)
[13:38] itsme Frederix: A lot of guys has tried to prove the non existense of God, how can you prove non-existence hats idiot
[13:38] herman Bergson: To prove the non existence is nonsense , in my opinion ^_^
[13:38] herman Bergson: But to proof the existence....
[13:38] herman Bergson: we have no scientific method what soever...
[13:39] herman Bergson: what are we investigating...
[13:39] herman Bergson: of what substance is ggod made...
[13:39] herman Bergson: and if he is not a substance in the natural way....
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: like a ghost or something
[13:39] herman Bergson: how do we happen to have knowledge about this non material substance???
[13:40] itsme Frederix: well ,we have knowledge about non-euclidian spaces
[13:40] herman Bergson: what method or sense did you use to obtain true knowledge about this non material substance?
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: The very word "God" is so nebulous it is unarguable without so precisely defining the term that the discussion becomes unproductive because of its specificity
[13:41] herman Bergson: True Repose
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Thats interesting - true knowledge as distinction from knowledge!
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:41] herman Bergson: dont play with the words Itsme^_^
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: i agree Repose... that is probably why when one says he/she believes in Santa, people will say s/he is crazy, but when one says he/she doesn't believe in God...
[13:41] itsme Frederix: retoric Herman
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:43] itsme Frederix: serious, true knowledge might be science, and supernatural knowledge might exist also - well it look like existing in the brain
[13:43] herman Bergson: I dont agree Itsme...
[13:43] herman Bergson: I should have said..as I meant...certain knowledge....
[13:44] herman Bergson: true knowledge is a pleonasm....
[13:44] itsme Frederix: why did you use true knowledge then?
[13:44] herman Bergson: I apologize for my sloppy way of expressing myself ^_^
[13:44] itsme Frederix: np, I accept
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh, not heard of a pleonasm...google here I come ㋡
[13:45] Jozen Ocello: me too .. let me know when you find it Repose :)
[13:45] itsme Frederix: green grass, white snow
[13:45] herman Bergson: It means that you add an adjective to a noun that already implies the quality..
[13:46] Jozen Ocello: aaahhhh
[13:46] herman Bergson: for instance the expression black raven...
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: pleonasm is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, clichéd, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of idiom
[13:46] herman Bergson: a raven is always black...so you are saying too much...
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yep
[13:47] herman Bergson: Anyway....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our discussion shows that we may expect interesting questions for the future...
[13:47] herman Bergson: touching very sensitive issues...
[13:48] herman Bergson: So...thank you for your participation today....
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:48] Jozen Ocello: thanks Prof and thanks everyone for the discussion :)
[13:48] herman Bergson: We'll discuss the Design of the Mind next Thursday...
[13:48] Jozen Ocello: look forward to that
[13:48] itsme Frederix: Herman, could you make a small addendum - the definition of knowledge as you take it?
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes¨
[13:49] herman Bergson: in this project knowledge might be regarded to mean scientific knowledge , Itsme
[13:50] herman Bergson: I have no intention to begin a discussion on epistemological issues now :-)
[13:50] itsme Frederix: oke thx, that tells me the playground
[13:50] herman Bergson: good..^_^
[13:50] itsme Frederix: and most certainly I will (try to) respect your borders for knowledge
[13:51] itsme Frederix: thx and bye bye
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this becomes more and more interesting
[13:51] herman Bergson: the epistemological issues have been discussed in detail in former projects..
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:51] herman Bergson: So in this project you have supernatural beliefs against scientific knowledge..
[13:52] herman Bergson: where knowledge can be regarded as formulated in falsifiable hypotheses
[13:53] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx again...class dismissed ^_^
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehehe...hae to get to my rl school now ㋡
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: afternoon for me
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: see ya
[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor :)