375: Consciousness and Subjectivity

Consciousness has three aspects that make it different from other biological phenomena, and indeed different from other phenomena in the natural world.

These three aspects are qualitativeness, subjectivity, and unity. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.

Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -

Previous lecture I elaborated on the qualitative feature of consciousness. Closely related to this feature is the fact that conscious states only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal subject. In that sense, they are essentially subjective.

When two people listen to a concert or look at a painting their experiences may be identical qualitatively in the sense, what is it like to listen to a concert or look at a painting.

But additionally both persons add their subjectivity to that experience, which makes the experiences unique for every person.

Because conscious states are subjective in this sense, they have what I will call a first-person ontology, as opposed to the third-person ontology of mountains and molecules, which can exist even if no living creatures exist.

Subjective conscious states have a first-person ontology ("ontology" here means mode of existence) because they only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal agent.

They are experienced by some "I" that has the experience, and it is in that sense that they have a first-person ontology.

Many philosophers and scientists also think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness.

For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.

It looks as if there is no objective knowledge possible of consciousness. However this is a mistake, caused by the ambiguous use of the subjective - objective distinction.

In one sense, the epistemic sense ("epistemic" here means having to do with knowledge), science is indeed objective.

Scientists seek truths that are equally accessible to any competent observer and that are independent of the feelings and attitudes of the experimenters in question.

"Rutte is the prime minister of the Netherlands" and "Rutte is a good prime minister" are two statements. The first one is epistemic objective, the second one is subjective, because it is a personal opinion.

But there is another sense of the objective-subjective distinction, and that is the ontological sense ("ontological" here means having to do with existence).

Some entities, such as pains, tickles, and itches, have a subjective mode of existence, in the sense that they exist only as experienced by a conscious subject.

Others, such as mountains, molecules and tectonic plates have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence does not depend on any consciousness.

From this we can conclude that the ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain.

Although the physician does not feel your pain, which is a subjective experience, he yet can have objective knowledge about your pain and its causes and help you.

Thus the subjectivity of consciousness does not exclude the possibility of objective knowledge about consciousness.


The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:20] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:20] Qwark Allen: seems we got back to dualism
[13:21] herman Bergson: The basic idea here is that if consciousness the result is of a biological process in the brain we can gain objective knowledge about the subjective mental states
[13:21] herman Bergson: No Qwark...
[13:21] herman Bergson: Only when you would agree with David Chalmers' ideas.
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yeah, Im not sure what dualism is
[13:22] Qwark Allen: objectivity/subjectivity
[13:22] herman Bergson: Dualism means that we have a body ...material....and a mind.....not material
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm something to do with Descartes as I remember
[13:23] herman Bergson: The dualist claims thus that ontologically there are two substances in the world...
[13:23] herman Bergson: material and mental substances
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Merlin that is Descartes..
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): mm good :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: This idea of dualism is abandoned by almost all philosophers of mind and neuroscientists and so on
[13:24] herman Bergson: However David Chalmers is one of the few who defends some kind of dualism
[13:24] Mick Nerido: If we could mind read would that prove dualism or objectivism?
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: it was too easy probably
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most people still have a dualist idea about body and mind Lizzy
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): last time you told us we don't have a mind..and now you do..
[13:25] herman Bergson: while among scientists this idea is discarded completely
[13:26] herman Bergson: looks puzzled at Beertje
[13:26] herman Bergson: I hope I didnt Beertje
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you did
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: how can science be objective but the scientists are not?
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): hahaha... look in the notes
[13:26] Qwark Allen: there was something about its definition
[13:26] herman Bergson: What I may have said is that we better can use the term consciousness than mind
[13:26] herman Bergson: because mind has so many meanings
[13:26] Qwark Allen: not mind, but conscience, i think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But if you take mind to be synonymous with consciousness there is no problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: I prefer consciousness because it also is a neurobiological concept
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: wordbaggage
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....and the word Mind has a long history in philosophy
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what is consciousness to a neurobiologist?
[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Druth
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think the picture answers your question
[13:30] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:30] Qwark Allen: Hey! misty
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: hello Misty
[13:30] Jaelle Faerye: hiya Misty
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hugss everyone
[13:30] herman Bergson: Hello Misty ㋡
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: pretty :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: fascinating picture isnt it Druth?
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): 13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:31] herman Bergson: as I said....
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: hmm good point beertje
[13:32] herman Bergson: I want to drop the WORD mind....not the phenomenon which we call mind or consciousness ㋡
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): confusing...
[13:32] Clerisse Beeswing: like braintease
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: "for everything there is a season, and a purpose under heaven" :-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...I understand
[13:33] herman Bergson: just to prevent confusion I prefer to use the word consciousness above mind
[13:33] Claudei: Hello
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: hi Claudei
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hello Claudia
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: hello Claudei
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: hi Claudei
[13:34] Clerisse Beeswing: Hello clauden
[13:34] herman Bergson: So our point today is that we can have objective knowlege of subjective experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but there are strict limits I suppose
[13:35] herman Bergson: In fact is that what all neuroscientists do every day when studying the brain/consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Any questions?
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds for me as if we would describe consciousness with its borders without knowing the inner area
[13:37] herman Bergson: we dont know much about consciousness Sybyle....
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thats what I got, Herman :))
[13:37] herman Bergson: What we know is that it is generated by the brain....
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): its kinda hard to concentrate :)
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: so far I can follow
[13:38] herman Bergson: we know about a correlation between subjective experiences and objective fMRI scannner results...
[13:38] herman Bergson: the picture behind me is an interesting example of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: but what we absolutely don't know is how the material brain can generate that what we experience as consciousness
[13:39] herman Bergson: but philosophically ...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is....
[13:39] herman Bergson: what we call consciousness....in what sense does it exist?
[13:39] herman Bergson: what IS it....
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): physically, no?
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: good question..sighs
[13:40] Mick Nerido: and why should it exist?
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): a function of brain activity
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Physically..in a material sense
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Its a mysterious thing
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): what other sense is there?
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: and does it exist in other places in the universe or just on planet earth?
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): What about plants
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is that a stupid question?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Francis Crick , I think it was, suggested that it was the 40Hz eleoctroning vibration or something like that in the brain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: No Merlin that is not a stupid question...
[13:41] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): but if fMRI shows it as physical activity, what's the issue?
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aaah ty.
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): there are no stupid questions at all
[13:42] herman Bergson: The issue is, Penelope, that the fMRI scan shows only part of consciousness
[13:42] herman Bergson: For example....
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some plants do sense things..so there could be a form of plant conscious.
[13:42] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): so ok, in ten years, they'll make a better MRI :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: there never has shown up an "I", a "Self" on an fMRI scan
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like chaos theory
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the issue is that people think they are their consciousness and want to know themselves as something other than the effect of physical processes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Druth ..and reality is that they aren't
[13:43] herman Bergson: We are the result of physical processes
[13:43] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): agreed :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: But indeed many people have great difficulty with that....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: it is like the question: where ends the universe and what is on the other side
[13:44] herman Bergson: due to religious ideas
[13:44] herman Bergson: nice question Lizzy....yes!
[13:44] Mick Nerido: The physical world behaves very strange at the micro and macro levels
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean with strange Mick
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: So is consciousness something the evolve as a protection process?
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Quantum physics for example
[13:45] herman Bergson: You only can qualify something as strange when you have a standard for normal
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahh..yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There seems to be something with matter that confuses us...
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): ooh mysty, YES
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): yes yes!
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): smart!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Laws of nature enable us to predict every outcome of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: however ...Quantum Physics seems to show us that we cant predict everythinng of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: that there is a basic randomness
[13:47] Mick Nerido: The material world is filled with mystery, Black holes, consciousness etc...
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: My consciousness is a black hole right now and a mystery I am still awake :-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:48] herman Bergson: Just realize that what we call science these days is hardly 300 years old
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Misty I like that!
[13:49] herman Bergson: that compared with a history of million years of the homo sapiens in evolution
[13:49] Claudei: homo sapiens is not a million years old
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): did they never think about this matter in earlier years?
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: but his evolution
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: or her evolution
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: and so much that we have learned of humans has only really been in the last 100 years or less.
[13:50] Claudei: how far into species evolution are you going
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: in other cultures they didn't have science?
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first toolmakers existed 2.4 million years ago
[13:50] herman Bergson: Use of fire 1 million years ago
[13:50] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): hey that's a good question Lizzy asked
[13:50] Claudei: he wasn't homo sapiens
[13:50] Qwark Allen: how you know that?
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is a good question indeed Lizzy...
[13:51] herman Bergson: To give you an example....
[13:51] Mick Nerido: i think he means our direct ancestors
[13:51] herman Bergson: till 1100 A.D the Arab culture was far more developed in science than the european...
[13:51] herman Bergson: they had great mathematicians....
[13:51] Qwark Allen: there was homo sapiens half million years ago
[13:52] herman Bergson: Then is vanished...
[13:52] herman Bergson: and the knowledge was through Spain exported to Europe
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: even the egytians had, think of the pyramides
[13:52] Mick Nerido: all our tool have extended our senses and expanded or conciousness
[13:52] herman Bergson: The Chinese had great science...
[13:52] Qwark Allen: and much before that
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but had they great philosophers too?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just their knowledge didn`t got to our days
[13:53] herman Bergson: But the europeans had some aggressive exploring drive...
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just in time rodney
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: So the fact that some animals also use tools.. does that give credit that they might also have consciousness?
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: hi Rodney
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Misty...to some extend certainly
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle
[13:54] herman Bergson: There are even animals that have self awareness....recognize themselves in a mirror
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Rod :)
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Lizzy
[13:55] herman Bergson: Welcome Rodney..:)
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or duck and run when they have been caught doing something bad!!! Bad conscious... Sorry, couldnt resist.
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hello Rodney
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: but animals that aren't able to recognize themselves have individual beheviours
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: it'll be another blow to our ego to have to share consciouness with animals, then bugs :)
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Beertie
[13:55] herman Bergson: I was just ready to end the discussion... ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Great class thanks Herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Hi Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very good
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why is it a blow to our ego ?
[13:56] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...we have a high esteem of ourselves indeed due to our consciousness
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we are animals too
[13:56] Qwark Allen: see what i mean, by just in time rodney
[13:56] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:56] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:56] Clerisse Beeswing: great class herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Beertje....don't underestimate the chimpansees ^_^
[13:57] herman Bergson: So...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: well, I suspect low esteem, otherwise it wouldn't bother us so much
[13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: Lots to think about and I only got part of the class.
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thanks Herman.. much to think about :)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: we just share 99.5% of our genes with them
[[13:57] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..and we behave like them too :-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: eehehhe indeed
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....
[13:58] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: wow...so soon
[13:58] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:58] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday it is!
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: I am in hurry, .. good night everybody!
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight every one
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: night Lizzy
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: waves*
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Lizzy and Beertje..TC
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: Night Beertje :)
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): waves:)))
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: and anyone else :-)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Anyone have notes on the first part?
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: it will be on the blog, Misty
[14:00] herman Bergson: I have a blog Misty
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ah ok. ty. Sorry for being late, but had appt with oral surg and just got home and straight to computer.
[14:00] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have the notes from 1 week ago
[14:01] herman Bergson: url is in my profile
[14:01] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I dont know if that that was the first one
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, knew about the blog, just dense today LOL
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: I can go back and read up on old lectures :-)
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY Merline :-)
[14:02] Mistyowl Warrhol: humm, Merlin ! Sorry for mistype.
[14:03] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): :)
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC all. til we meet again.. hugs :-)
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: you too
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[14:04] druth Vlodovic: have fun guys
[14:04] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, I must go too. Bye all.
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ty Sybyle and I will start readin today lol
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Merlin
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: bye Druth
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Merlin and Druth
[14:05] herman Bergson: Bye Druth]
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: bye Herman
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious how it will continue, Herman
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: thanks again
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: see you next week :)
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: good bye :)

372: The Brain and Consciousness, a temporary answer

Today I 'll try to clarify once again to what conclusion I have come with regard to the classic "MIND - BODY" problem.

To begin with, there never has been a "problem". The problem was created by Descartes (1596 - 1650). In the 17th century natural science emerged as a new realm of human knowledge.

The method was derived from the Ancient Greek: formulate a theory, make observations and test your theory: a systematic set of logically related propositions that attempt to explain the phenomena of some domain.

It is that in the seventeenth century there was a very serious conflict between science and religion, and it seemed that science was a threat to religion. Like religion is attacked these days again. Just think of Richard Dawkins.

Descartes devices the solution: he argued that reality divides into two kinds, the mental and the physical, res cogitans and res extensa.

Descartes made a useful division of the territory: Religion had the territory of the soul, and science could have material reality.

This shaped our vocabulary about the metal and the physical, which was of course heavily extended by the rise of psychology. Everything became mental or physical.

A good example of opposition this view: do you realize that for decades psycho-somatic diseases didn't exist. Psychiatric patients were put in cages, as if it were malfunctioning machines, good for a laugh.

It is in our time, actually these past few decades, that we have accepted the unity of being: that there is not such a thing as a mind and another thing called the body.

Yes, there is a causal relation between the mind and the body, to be more specific between the brain and the mind, defined as consciousness.

Ontology is the philosophical branch which asks the question: what does exist. Thus, our question is "Does consciousness really exist?" Or is our mental vocabulary just another way of talking about matter.

John Searle says: consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon just like digestion is, but it has some specific features in which it differs from other biological processes. We'll get to that later.

Let me try to explain the ontological status of consciousness. Consciousness is generated by the brain. No brain no consciousness.

Important here is to have a good understanding of causality. The general idea is that A causes B, where A and B are two independent events, which in a way also could exist independent of each other. After cause A, B could go on on its own.

That however, is not the case with consciousness, nor with other phenomena in physics. There exists also a kind of causality of mutual dependence.

And here we have difficulty to grasp the meaning of the statement that consciousness exists. Let me give you again the example of the causal relation between h2o molecules and liquidity.

We all accept that liquidity exists. Ok, as a property of water and there is the catch: WHAT is the ontological status of "liquidity", of such a property? Matter exists, molecules exist, but in what sense does a property exist?

Descartes solved the problem easily. He just concluded that this property could be regarded as an independent non material matter.

And here comes the brainteaser. Liquidity is not identical with h2o molecules under certain circumstances, for when I pick out such a molecule it will be just a collection of atoms and not liquid. Neither can you find a braincell of which you can say that it is conscious.

There is a way of existence which totally depends on the configuration of matter, which can be a subject of scientific research without forcing us to postulate something more than matter. In other words…the mind is the brain….


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you....
[13:21] herman Bergson: The floor is yours!!
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano cheers.
[13:22] Sybyle Perdide: sighs
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: so it's all because of politics, I knew it!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well druth....the dualism is
[13:22] Farv Hallison: the social construction of reality.
[13:23] herman Bergson: Dualism was Farv....
[13:23] druth Vlodovic: why is sybyle sighing?
[13:23] Mick Nerido: The brain is a organ that is an electro chemical computer...
[13:23] Netty Crystal is Offline
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: cause she have to get the clue..slowly
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: has*
[13:24] Mariella Diesel (mariella.deezul) is Offline
[13:24] herman Bergson: Welll Mick...say that it is electro -chemical ....and leave the computer part...:-)
[13:24] herman Bergson: A computer is not even a shadow of the capacities of the brain
[13:25] Mick Nerido: just for a functional comparison not the same
[13:25] herman Bergson: I know MIck.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: But you know....the mind - computer comparison is an issue in itself....
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: to me, the most convincing evidence of this is what happens to a brain and a mind after a stroke. You lose a brain area, you lose its function...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just look at the picture behind me Sousinne...
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is your story
[13:26] Loo Zeta: But the brain compensates and regenerates new pathways
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: Which says to me that if you were to lose your entire brain, say, at death... you would lose ALL function - i.e. oblivion
[13:27] Loo Zeta: we chuck computers out
[13:27] Mick Nerido: All our senses are feeding the brain information and the brain synthezises all to produce a "consciousness"
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: but not always completely
[13:27] Farv Hallison: then let the brain heal and redistribute its memories and the function comes back.
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: not always, Farv
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: Not really... areas are not interchangeable.
[13:28] Loo Zeta: Some memory function is lost forever
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: When you do get a partial refunctioning, it's not as it happens witout a cost
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes but some functions can move to other brain areas....it happens
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: sure
[13:29] Loo Zeta: reschematics
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: it happens in a limited way. A damaged brain stays damaged.
[13:29] herman Bergson: True Sousinne
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and a damaged mind?
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: but good question Beertje
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: (without but)
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: And a damaged mind.
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is not a good question, Beertje..lol
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: why not?
[13:31] herman Bergson: It is ambiguous...
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: We don't use 10% of our brain... we use exactly 100% of it, but not all the time.
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: one has to define what a damaged mind is
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: and
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: this is SL...
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye looks suspiciously around
[13:31] druth Vlodovic: lol
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: So every little area destroyed will respond to lost function.
[13:31] herman Bergson: because a damaged mind refers to a psychological state, not to a neurobiolocal state
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: but if the mind is the brain...
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: but isn't the idea that any psychological state has a corresponding neurological state?
[13:32] herman Bergson: I mean...my mind is damaged of course..I am crazy ..:-)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: It doesn't matter much, as you said, Sybyle
[13:32] herman Bergson: but my brian is ok....as is my consciousness :-)
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: i am not sure the mind is the brain, Sybyle
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Brain damage is mind damage
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: the mind is "part of", or "sits in" the brain, maybe?
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: you are to fats Sousinne
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: No
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: not necessarily
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...if you keep the terms in the neurobiological context Sousinne
[13:33] Loo Zeta: Frontal lobe?
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: I always do, Herman
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if "mind" is how you think then you have to include the effects of hormones
[13:34] herman Bergson: hold on....!!!!!
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: And where do hormones come from?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Something is going wrong here.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: All of a sudden we ar e using the term MIND....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman, have to go Bye
[13:35] Farv Hallison: bye Mick
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hormones come from glands that are directly or indirectly regulated from the Thalamus.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: bye Mick
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: and we didnt define it b4
[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that is a completely obsolete term....with no meaning at all or hundreds of meanings
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hmmm, hypothalamus. sorry.
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Sousinne...better place to be ^_^
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Which is definitely part of the brain.
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: "brain" is an organ while "mind" is a concept, yes?
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: too general i think
[[13:36] herman Bergson: Brain is an organ Druth and consciousness is its product
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: but not everything we do is conscious
[13:37] herman Bergson: Mind is a word form the history of philosophy...
[13:37] arabella Ella is Online
[13:37] herman Bergson: no use for that anymore
[13:37] herman Bergson: leads only to confusion....
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: we even make decisions without really engaging the consciousness
[13:37] herman Bergson: unless you say mind is synonymous with consciousness
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes we do Druth....
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Mind is consciousness.
[13:38] herman Bergson: with every step you take for instance
[13:38] Farv Hallison: I think the mind is where understanding occurs.
[13:38] druth Vlodovic: I was thinking of "mind" as being a more general term encompassing everything that causes thought or action
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so we need to find a definition of mind, before talking about
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: but we have supernatural phenomens that you cant explain this way
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Such as...?
[13:39] herman Bergson: To begin with Sybyle
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: transfer of thoughts
[13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Well, if you have evidence of telepathy, I am sure there are many who would listen.
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: its okay
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: i agree
[13:40] herman Bergson: And what Farv said I would reply....
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: if I am uncomfortably warm it will make me irritable, this will affect my thoughts, so my overheated body becomes part of my mind without being part of my brain
[13:40] Farv Hallison: but if you drop the mind, where does understanding happen?
[13:41] herman Bergson: you refer to cognitive functions which are inherent to consciousness
[13:41] herman Bergson: Understanding as a function of consciousness
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i feel a bit empty without a mind...
[13:42] herman Bergson: But you are a still a conscious person Beertje
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: i would feel empty without a soul
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: but that's another question
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye smiles
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: soul is very unscientific jaelle:_))
[13:42] herman Bergson: the word mind is so related to our dualist views of mind and body....
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I dropped the idea of a soul a while back, the emptiness fills in :)
[13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: Understanding happens in the very highest abstract thought centers.
[13:42] herman Bergson: you feel lost without a mind and happy without a body...
[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: if you can define soul, it becomes scientific, Lizzy
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: absolutely
[13:43] Sousinne Ceriano: You are always on my consciousness?
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: oh dear Beertje...
[13:44] Farv Hallison: Where do you make the descion to jump out of the way when you see a shadow that might be a tiger?
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: lol, I have to go or I'll feel empty inside without a pizza
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: the limbic system of the brain does that Farv...
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: bye druth
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: bye all
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: In some risk evaluation center. Also pretty high up.
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not evne a decision in a conscious sense
[13:44] Jaelle Faerye: ye Druth
[13:45] druth Vlodovic is Offline
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I have burned out half of my class now....looks good
[13:45] herman Bergson: time to end the discusion.....^_^
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye feels like a mindless survivor
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....great discussion again today....!
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Always been mindless here =)
[13:46] Loo Zeta: Thanks sorry missed beginning
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you, professor.
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: I am crazy..so I don't feel my mindlessness here ;)
[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: but.. well done, Herman..thanks a lot
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: haaa
[13:46] herman Bergson: and never mind....
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks Herman
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: ooh nice pun
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman! it was great again!
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can't sing that song anymore..but i can sing..toen onze mop een mopje was..lalallalalal
[13:47] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy...
[13:47] herman Bergson: lol
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: will we continue at that point next time?
[13:47] Farv Hallison: yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: Great class today!
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: great teacher ; )
[13:48] Loo Zeta: and i will direct RL son to your blogs, he is starting Philosophy degree in Wales soon
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:49] Qwark Allen: getting interesting everyday more
[13:49] herman Bergson: Oh...Might be a good help for him....
[13:49] herman Bergson: If he really reads through all my projects he really get s good insight in many topics
[13:50] herman Bergson: He may skip the discussions :-)
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano giggles.
[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all...have a goodnight
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: nite Beertje!
[13:51] herman Bergson: By eBeertje
[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:51] Jaelle Faerye: bye Beertje
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: ooh
[13:53] Qwark Allen: see you next class
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Qwark
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: i just discovered that you give the "class notes" on your blog!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: nice!
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman, good night!
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thnx for coming Lizzy :-)
[13:54] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks, Herman
[13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure Jaelle
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: good night Herman
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: I am glad my friends made me discover this class
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: :)
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: it was a pleasure
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: as always
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Sybyle

360: Introducing Functionalism

Maybe it is due to Descartes (1596 - 1650) that we are talking about mind stuff, asking the question what the mind is made of.

But perhaps that is the wrong question in this philosophy of mind. For instance, practically all cars have carburetors.A carburetor is a device which combines petrol with air and delivers the resulting mixture to the engine.

There is one in almost every car, but I guess not two are alike. They can have all kinds of shapes, been made out of all kinds of materials.

But is that of primary importance? To question what stuff a carburetor is made of or how it is constructed? Isn't it more relevant to focus on what a carburetor does?

An antibiotic is a substance which does a certain job: it kills disease-causing bacteria without doing serious harm to the patient.

Penicillin kills disease-forming bacteria without doing undue harm to the patient; consequently it's an antibiotic.

Erythromycine also kills disease-causing bacteria without doing serious harm to the patient; consequently it too is an antibiotic. However, penicillin and erythromycine have quite different chemical structures.

Like with carburetors we can say that antibiotics are multiply realized, that we have multiple instantiations of them. To understand what is happening in the world, the right question is not "What stuff is it made of?" but "What job does it do?"

When we talk about ontology, the philosophy of what IS, we are easily inclined to think that what IS, is built of matter. Thus is overlooked that what IS equally are processes, actions, functions. And there was FUNCTIONALISM!

“Functionalism” is one of the major proposals that have been offered as solutions to the mind-body problem.

Solutions to the mind-body problem usually try to answer questions such as: What is the ultimate nature of the mental?

At the most general level, what makes a mental state mental? Or more specifically, what do thoughts have in common in virtue of which they are thoughts? That is, what makes a thought a thought? What makes a pain a pain?

Cartesian dualism said the ultimate nature of the mental was to be found in a special mental substance.

Behaviorism identified mental states with behavioral dispositions; physicalism, in its most influential version, identifies mental states with brain states.

Functionalism says that mental states are constituted by their causal relations to one another and to sensory inputs and behavioral outputs.

Functionalism is one of the major theoretical developments of twentieth-century analytic philosophy, and provides the conceptual underpinnings of much work in cognitive science.

Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of mind and its processes. It examines what cognition is, what it does and how it works.

It includes research on how information is processed (in faculties such as perception, language, memory, reasoning, and emotion), represented, and transformed in behaviour, (human or other animal) nervous system or machine (e.g., computer).

Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.

In coming lectures we'll learn what part philosophy and in particular functionalism plays in this interdisciplinary world.


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:21] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: Bravo!
[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you Qwark
[13:21] Farv Hallison: Functionalism begs the Ontological question.
[13:21] herman Bergson: Explain Farv....
[13:22] Qwark Allen: seems "everyday" more disciplines are kind melting in each others, making a better view of "reality"
[13:22] Farv Hallison: you change the question rather than answer it.
[13:22] Qwark Allen: the perception we have today of it, is so much diferent, it was 50 years ago
[13:22] Qwark Allen: just to do not go, more far in past
[13:22] herman Bergson: well.... for the moment it sounds to me more as an other approach to the ontological question...
[13:23] herman Bergson: in fact you could say that functionalism isn't much concerned about ontology...
[13:24] herman Bergson: when you define a mental state in terms of what is does, it isn't important what the material basis is
[13:24] herman Bergson: functionalism is therefor even neutral regarding materialism or dualism...
[13:25] herman Bergson: And yes qwark you are quite right about that....
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: we can take an analogy, an electric motor
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: can be made of different materials
[13:25] herman Bergson: My perception of the philosophy of mind has changed so greatly in relation to what I knew in 1977
[13:25] Farv Hallison: that's good, you leave open the question of whether matter is an emergent property of the mind.
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: for dc or ac and be made in different shapes and so
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: but they all do one thing the same
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: transfer electric energi to mechanical movement 8rotation)ö
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: rotation
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Farv....functionalism wouldn't question that
[13:27] herman Bergson: We'll go in to much more detail in next lectures....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: i guess its sort of the same with the mind in speaking of functionalism
[13:27] herman Bergson: functionalism is a dominating view, these days...
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Transportation can be walking flying driving not at all the same
[13:27] herman Bergson: there you find the mind / computer analogy....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:28] herman Bergson: the mind as software and the brain as hardwear...
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: but you come from point A to point B, the result is the same as if you use a bycicle
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes exactly
[13:28] herman Bergson: We'll come to talk about that…don't worry...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hmm well but for certain distances like my trip to turkey before bike wouldn't be very practical
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: but basically yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: This functionalism is a kind of answer on the identity theory...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: its about moving around in different ways
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: lets change the example
[13:30] Mick Nerido: we don't know how a mint works
[13:30] Mick Nerido: mind
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: a bomb destroys as well as a flood..but they are different
[13:30] herman Bergson: ok Sybyle
[13:30] Farv Hallison savors mint.
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: both generates a pusch , a force
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: push
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: but the difference is greater as between bike and plane
[13:31] Mick Nerido: I have to leave early, sorry
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: very, the result is that you move i n both cases but a plane can move over water and MUCH faster
[13:31] herman Bergson: ok...next lecture I'll explain in detail in what way functionalism thinks to be an answer to limitations of the identity theory...
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: i think it is the result what counts and not how we reach it
[13:31] Farv Hallison: nice seeing you Mick
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: tc Mick
[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: tc mick
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy, such an observation is in line with functionalism...
[13:32] Mick Nerido: See you next class thats all Herman also
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: you cannot divide it completely, Lizzy, I think
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: cu Mick
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well, don't worry....
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: if you look at the aim..yes
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: i forgive you Sybyle, giggle
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but if you ask if the aim was planned for example
[13:33] herman Bergson: I will gonna be a pretty complex and abstract issue, this functionalism...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: sighs
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: thx Lizzy
[13:33] herman Bergson: It
[13:34] herman Bergson: I am not sure about is 100% myself, how to interpret it....
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: i a bit tricky indeed
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: its
[13:34] Farv Hallison: what is tricky?
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: philosophy
[13:34] herman Bergson: Main point is: Is it an answer to our questions about the mind - body problem...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: ; )
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: how to attack this subject
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: but will be interesting
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: i think i get the point so far anyway
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: s i said about the motors before
[13:35] herman Bergson: especially because this functionalist view is widely accepted....
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: they can be made way different for ac and dc but do the same thing basically
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: every theory ignores important matters i think
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: electricity becomes rotation
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: but of course, as always in philosophy.....it comes in a number of flavors ㋡
[13:36] Qwark Allen: heeheh
[13:36] Farv Hallison: mint I hope
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: strawberry I prefer
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:36] herman Bergson: So..I would suggest.....take a good night rest and be here next Thursday for the next lecture on this subject ^_^
[13:37] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:37] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: great start Herman
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: will be interesting
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Professor!
[13:37] herman Bergson: thank you for your participation...
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Professor
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: nice Herman
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:37] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goed Gedaan Jochie!!
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸

327: The Brain, Objectivity and Subjectivity

Before digging into Dualism I have to deal with a question that came up in the discussion after my previous lecture.

It boiled down to the question how a subjective mind / consciousness can obtain objective knowledge about the mind, because, isn't that a subjective something?

let me begin with quoting John Searle:
"Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation.

This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science.

Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically.

Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity.

Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology,

but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective
science of consciousness.

We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms."

This may sound a bit complicated and I'll not explain it all in detail, but what is important in this matter is our common way of thinking in the dichotomy objective - subjective.

Many philosophers and scientists think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness.

For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.

This is not correct and I'll show you why. As knowledge science is objective indeed. That means, a scientist can find the truth of a statement, which is independent of the observer.

"Herman Bergson is in RL 1.78m tall" and "Herman Bergson is a good philosopher". The first statement is objective knowledge. Anyone can put it to the test and proof the correctness.

The second statement is subjective. There is no way of settling the truth or falsehood of it. I hope, you find at least one person who'd like to say "yes, that is true". Others may have reasons to say "That statement is false."

We may call this epistemic objectivity and epistemic subjectivity, but we have to make another subjective - objective distinction.

Pains and tickles, for example, have a subjective mode of existence. Nobody else can feel my headache, but me myself.

But mountains, cars and houses have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence doesn't depend on any consciousness.

Because this is about things and how they exist, we can call it the distinction between ontological objectivity and ontological subjectivity.

Thence you can conclude, that it is very well possible to have objective knowledge (the epistemic level) of what exists only as my subjective mental states (the ontological level).

Or to say it in Searle words:"There is no reason whatever why we cannot have an objective science of pain, even though pains only exist when they are felt by conscious agents.

The ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain."

In other words, science is by definition objective in the epistemological sense and consciousness is by definition subjective in the ontological sense and for that reason it is completely normal that there is scientific knowledge possible about consciousness.

What I wanted to make clear is, that in the debate we must keep a sharp eye on the questions: "Is this statement objective / subjective knowledge?"

and "is the existence of this fact depending on consciousness or independent of consciousness". This is the distinction between epistemic and ontological objectivity / subjectivity.

I am sorry I had to put you through this rather technical philosophical stuff, but it is an important argument regarding possibility of a the science of consciousness.


The Discussion

[13:27] herman Bergson: this much about the ontological and epistemological objectivity...
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: my skin has also epistemic history...but..it doesnt tell me..
[13:28] herman Bergson: A bit philosophical hitech maybe...:-)
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and my bones..dont talk to me about their ontologic background also
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: :O)
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..sure would be interesting to talk about your skin..later:9
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: i just wanted to ask...
[13:28] herman Bergson: of course not Kyra...
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: who defines
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: objective
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: subjective
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Because these are features of consciousness...and your bones as such aren't conscious
[13:29] herman Bergson: Who defines objective and subjective...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...quite simple...we do...not my cat for instance...
[13:30] herman Bergson: It is rules we define to tell what is knowledge and what is not
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: not knowledge
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: object and subject..
[13:30] herman Bergson waves at Elia
[13:30] Elia Scribe: Hi Herman!!
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: is defined..by.."you"
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what is you?
[13:31] herman Bergson: no no...not subject and object....has nothing to do with this
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you are an subjective thing
[13:31] herman Bergson: no no....
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: herman
[13:31] herman Bergson: these definitions are intersubjective...
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we see through eyes..are
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we hear
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we can think
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you ..me..him..
[13:32] Kyra Neutron: are totally subjective
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she is right in one way but
[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemological objective means that any one can establish the truth or falsity of a statement
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she ignores the fact that she says "we"
[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I see, hear, the same - now it is objective
[13:32] Kyra Neutron: throws the shoe at baldur...
[13:32] Kyra Neutron: i has to say it otherwise..you don't listen
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra...
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sticks out tongue
[13:33] Mick Nerido: Without an observer is an event real?
[13:33] herman Bergson: ontologically is subjective all what I hear you say ....MY hearing only....
[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: objective is a result of common agreement -for example of the meaning of a word ..that is -becomes independent of the individual idea
[13:33] herman Bergson: But the meaning of what you say...the epistemological content is NOT subjective...
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: how can you define it?
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: you are "subjective" ?
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: :/
[13:34] herman Bergson: I can repeat to someone else literally what you said and ask..is that true or false..
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: smile..we are social and communication dependent animals:9
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: damit..you cant even prove that you exist :/
[13:35] herman Bergson: If I hear you say "I have seen a martian"...ontologically it is subjective...
[13:35] Doodus Moose: is just glad he's not being tested on this :-)
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: or we...
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: if i pinch your ass you know you exist
[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I can bite you and then you feel that I exist
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: if i have "the" ass...
[13:35] herman Bergson: But epistemologically I can put it to the test...
[13:35] Evie1: glad it was not punch
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: no..that only proves..i am dreaming all of "you"
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: all the universe
[13:36] herman Bergson: I can ask you to show me evidence...which is independent of the observer...
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: and ...oh my...god gene...?
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: nooooooo
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: smile ok if you are just immaterial you won't feelyour ass pinched..
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: it is the god itself !
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: haha ok ok..sorry herman
[13:37] herman Bergson: Baldur..leave her ass alone..not in my class ! :-)
[13:37] Mick Nerido: Her point of view is entirely subjective....nothing exists if Kyra doesn't
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: sorry but she does have a NICE ONE:9
[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll get to that...sollipsime
[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes...and as all of you...
[13:37] herman Bergson: a logic consequence of the Cartesian view
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nothing exist..if you don't…
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: so..next time..telling about "objective" remember it ;9
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: i thought todays class was about the "i"?
[13:38] herman Bergson: nothing exist..if you don't…..this statement Kyra...
[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry i must go
[13:38] Elia Scribe: Kyra, this is at least in part an answer to your question: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Werner Karl Heisenberg
[13:38] Mick Nerido: I think the world was here before me and will be here after I am gone
[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty! herman & class - see u soon :-)
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: mick
[13:39] herman Bergson: IS just epistemic...not ontological...
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: have you seen..world
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: before "you"
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: me didnt
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and i wont see world after me
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: so..i am not flattering myself..to be part of the big clock...
[13:40] herman Bergson: this is all about your subjective knowledge Kyra...
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: yes herman
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: as much as all of us
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: has
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the scientists
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the ones that try to "wolf"
[13:40] herman Bergson: that doesnt have any effect on scientific knowledge of reality
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: till you connect
[13:40] Kyra Neutron: you are subjectvie
[13:40] Mick Nerido: I see objective evidence of a previous existence of the world before I was here, History
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: but you agree you are part of something?
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: objectively?
[13:41] Kyra Neutron: it is not my agree
[13:41] Kyra Neutron: baldur..
[13:41] Kyra Neutron: or knowledge
[13:41] herman Bergson: sollipsime isnt refutable logically...
[13:42] herman Bergson: even philosophically a waste of time
[13:42] Kyra Neutron: oks herman
[13:42] Kyra Neutron: but what you try to say
[13:42] herman Bergson: betrand Russell once received a letter from a highly gifted mathematician....She wrote..I am a solipsist now...I wonder why you aren't
[13:42] Kyra Neutron: or learn
[13:42] Kyra Neutron: is already there
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: you don't agree..not bee part of something.. so how come you can participate in a discussion
[13:42] Kyra Neutron: ..........
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: he also had given a high blessing for "being nothing"
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: smile what is there is undergoing eternal change..
[13:43] herman Bergson: Not sure what you mean Kyra....
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hmm
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hiçliğin türküsü
[13:44] herman Bergson: Your point in one statement...regarding objective and subjective
[13:44] Kyra Neutron: idk the english translation of it
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: right..
[13:44] Kyra Neutron: opening for one of his statements :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: whose statements?
[13:44] Kyra Neutron: porphyre eglantine
[13:44] herman Bergson: dont know the man/woman
[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it is called ( russells book )
[13:45] Mick Nerido: "Biocenterism" agrees with Kyra
[13:45] Elia Scribe: The solipsist would seem to be lonely.
[13:45] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): "song of nothingness"
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..for the rest of the group..can we let
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: herman finish his class and then we talk?
[13:46] Kyra Neutron: the existentialist's crisis
[13:46] Kyra Neutron: or sth like that..
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..here we deal with real arguments only..not with references to books or authors....
[13:46] Kyra Neutron: yes..song of nothingness
[13:46] Kyra Neutron: ty hakan..
[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yw
[13:46] Kyra Neutron: so the example..is not fitting
[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): or "ballad of nonexixtence"
[13:46] herman Bergson: If we would do that we also could refer to the bible any time
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: or i shall talk about kafka for the next half hour
[13:47] Kyra Neutron: hahaha
[13:47] Kyra Neutron: yes
[13:47] Kyra Neutron: kafka
[13:47] Kyra Neutron: and you has blessed time without ky
[13:47] Kyra Neutron: :p
[13:47] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yep
[13:47] herman Bergson: Not acceptable in a philosophical debate...
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: SMILE TY KYR
[13:47] herman Bergson: I want arguments....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Logical
[13:48] herman Bergson: verifiable
[13:48] Elia Scribe: Logical = Linguistic?
[13:48] herman Bergson: and that is all
[13:48] herman Bergson: no ELia..
[13:48] Kyra Neutron: herman..this is my "logic"
[13:48] Kyra Neutron: :/
[13:48] herman Bergson: Just pure and simple logic..
[13:49] herman Bergson: that something either true of false
[13:49] herman Bergson: for instance
[13:49] Kyra Neutron: lauging ...hidden :)
[13:49] Elia Scribe: Pure and simple logic seems an ideal, perhaps not existent?
[13:49] Kyra Neutron: oks...true or false
[13:49] Elia Scribe: Ahh.
[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is like binary ...
[13:49] herman Bergson: oh yes..you live by it every day elia..
[13:49] Kyra Neutron: but..now we have this ;
[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is true + and+ false
[13:50] Elia Scribe: In what sense do you mean that Herman?
[13:50] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): maybe for me it is true and for you it is false
[13:50] Evie1: sorry rl calls bye all
[13:50] herman Bergson: ok kyra...you go outside..and you say..look it is raining and not raining at the same time
[13:50] Kyra Neutron: herman
[13:51] herman Bergson: Just as I said Elia...
[13:51] Kyra Neutron: can you define where i am ?
[13:51] Kyra Neutron: i simply cant...
[13:51] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): here in sl
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: KYRA..please ..i'm sure herman will be ready to dicuss those questions after class on in the diswcussion for hours.. but think of the others..simple minded people like me..who want to get basics..
[13:51] herman Bergson: when you go outside and you observe that is is not raining you will not say it is raining
[13:51] Kyra Neutron: ok ok ....
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! guys I have to go rl stuff
[13:52] herman Bergson: well Baldur..that basics of today are these
[13:52] Elia Scribe: Well there is interaction with the world. Is this a part of the logic I do every day?
[13:52] herman Bergson: consciousness is a subjective matter....
[13:52] Kyra Neutron: yes....ty at last!
[13:52] herman Bergson: there is only your conscious....
[13:53] herman Bergson: question is...
[13:53] herman Bergson: tho it is a subjective matter...
[13:53] Kyra Neutron: yes you can
[13:53] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you can define what consciousness is: and then it is objective
[13:53] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of your subjective consciousness
[13:53] Kyra Neutron: my answer was for herman..
[13:53] herman Bergson: We leave that out for the moment Siggi…plaza
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: if you agree that all organic life is an individal entity..
[13:54] Kyra Neutron: no
[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: makes may be easier to understand
[13:54] herman Bergson: your subjective conscious is subjective in an ontological sense...
[13:55] herman Bergson: but when you smash your thumb with a hammer I can ask you...does it hurt???
[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you will say ..yes...
[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: kyra might love it
[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :p
[13:55] Kyra Neutron: yes
[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: she feels she exists:)
[13:55] herman Bergson: this means...epistemically...as knowledge I can verify the statement..Baldur's thumb hurt...
[13:56] herman Bergson: I gather evidence...
[13:56] herman Bergson: You are screaming....
[13:56] Kyra Neutron: 100% right baldur
[13:56] herman Bergson: I could have a brainscan...showing C fibres firing...
[13:56] herman Bergson: I can see the blood...
[13:56] herman Bergson: and so on....
[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: sure Kyra bleeds?
[13:57] Kyra Neutron: periodicly yes
[13:57] herman Bergson: I have soon hundreds of cases like that...and all said….revealing their subjecive consciousness with the words.....IT HURTS!
[13:57] Kyra Neutron: so i needs hammer
[13:57] Kyra Neutron: but as part of...no
[13:57] herman Bergson: I cant feel the pain....but I CAN have objective knowledge about it....
[13:57] Kyra Neutron: (lag)
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: herman
[13:58] herman Bergson: therefore I give you morphine :-)
[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: WELL IF I OBSERVE IT IT WOULD bew a subjectiv e observation.. smile which doenbs't hurt me
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: you cant have objective knowledge
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: never ever ever
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: "you"
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: is subjective
[13:58] herman Bergson: oh yes Kyra....
[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: right kyra..but you share your emotion with others..so they won't do it again..
[13:58] Kyra Neutron: it is your chemical compound
[13:59] Mick Nerido: If a tree falls and no one hears it did it make a sound?
[13:59] herman Bergson: When I have a big rock....and I see it fall on you..you will be crushed....
[13:59] Kyra Neutron: your electric connections
[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: which means ..your brain is in connection with your ewnvironment
[13:59] Kyra Neutron: herman
[13:59] Kyra Neutron: coz..you raised by that knowledge
[13:59] Kyra Neutron: you say you will be crushed
[13:59] Kyra Neutron: so my mother has raised by that knowledge
[13:59] herman Bergson: the observations is completely independent of my consciousness...
[13:59] herman Bergson: Every person will find that splash of blood and bones under that rock
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: and my grandson..will be..
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: if it doesnt..raised by that
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: how dare you can say..it will be crushed?
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will lift it
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will divide it into small pieces
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: there wont be any rock at all
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: or
[14:00] Elia Scribe: Herman, isn't this practical truth? What the Buddhists call conventional reality?
[14:00] Kyra Neutron: belive is everything
[14:01] Mick Nerido: I must leave, thanks for the spirited discussion
[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: kyra.. human evlution is lagregely dependent on the communication possibilities..which include abstacts..l
[14:01] Kyra Neutron: o.O,
[14:01] herman Bergson: I agree Mick…this discussion can go on for ages :-)
[14:01] Kyra Neutron: mick pls ..i am sorry for opening my frog mouth .7
[14:01] herman Bergson: No ..you have the right to do that Kyra..like everyone here
[14:02] Elia Scribe: Behind that AV you are a frog?
[14:02] Doodus Moose: i'm heading for the wine cellar right after this....
[14:02] herman Bergson: But your ideas about that falling rock are questionable
[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): good night to all
[14:02] Kyra Neutron: oh my...save some for us?
[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..herman told us fromnthe beginning that philosophy is allaboitu asking questions
[14:03] Kyra Neutron: baldur
[14:03] herman Bergson: Good idea Doodus....I share that with you in an objective way:-)
[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it may be...
[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: smile finding the right questions is the quest:9
[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it is not only the questions
[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: not finding the answers :9
[14:03] herman Bergson: Finding the wine cellar is now our next objective
[14:04] herman Bergson: So..may I thank you all for this vivd debate....
[14:04] herman Bergson: Thank you Kyra…we're not done yet ...give it time
[14:04] Kyra Neutron: yes herman
[14:04] Kyra Neutron: ty
[14:04] Kyra Neutron: for
[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed