skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Leibniz'sprinciple of the indiscernibility of identical is often used as a means to demonstrate that mental states and brainstates can not be identical.Some technical remarks in advance. Qualia is the plural of quale, which means the subjectivity of our sensory experiences.A valid logical reasoning leads to a conclusion that is true, if and only if the premises are all true.The symbol ≠ means IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH.The remainder of this lecture are not my words but the words of Patricia Churchland, as quoted from her book "Neurophilosophy", 1986.This lecture will be longer than usual, but you really have to hear this and maybe reread it later, because it is a brilliant example of logical and philosophical analysis regarding Leibniz Law and theIdentity Theory.( A )( 1 ) The qualia of my sensations are knowable to me by introspection .( 2 ) The properties of my brain states are not knowable to me by introspection .Therefore :(3 ) The qualia of my sensations ≠ the properties of my brain states .A second argument , complementary to the first , seems also in play : (1) The properties of my brain states are knowable by the various external senses .(2) The qualia of my sensations are not knowable by the various external senses .Therefore :(3) The qualia of my sensations ≠ the properties of my brain states .The general form of the argument seems to be this :(1) a is F(2) b is not FTherefore :(3) a ≠ bLeibniz 's law says that a = b if and only if a and b have every property in common . So if a = b, then if a is red, b is red, if a weighs ten pounds , then b weighs ten pounds , and so forth . If a is red and b is not , then a ~ b. Assuming their premises are true , arguments (A ) and (B) appear to establish the nonidentity of brain states and mental states . But are their premises true ?Let us begin with argument (A). There is no quarrel with the first premise (the qualia of my sensations are known -to-me-by-introspection ), especially since qualia are defined as those sensory qualities known by introspection , and in any case I have no wish to deny introspective awareness of sensations . In contrast , the second premise (the properties of my- brain states are NOT known-to-me-by-introspection ) looks decidedly troublesome. Its first problem is that it begs the very question at issue - that is, the question of whether or not mental states are identical to brain states . This is easy to see when we ask what the justification is for thinking that premise true . The point is this : if in fact mental states are identical to brain states, then when I introspect a mental state , I do introspect the brain state with which it is identical . Needless to say, I may not describe my mental state as a brain state, but whether I do depends on what information I have about the brain , not upon whether the mental state really is identical to some brain state. The identity can be a fact about the world independently of my knowledge that it is a fact about the world . Similarly , when Jones swallows an aspirin , he thereby swallows acetylsalicylic acid, whether or not he thinks of himself thus; when Oedipus kissed Jocasta, he kissed his mother , whether or not he thought of himself thus . In short, identities may obtain even when we have not discovered that they do. The problem with the second premise is that the only justification for denying that introspective awareness of sensations could be introspective awareness of brain states derives from the assumption that mental states are not identical with brain states. And that is precisely what the argument is supposed to prove . Hence the charge of begging the question . (Although I have used (A) as an illustration , the same kind of criticism applies equally to (B).)Other problems with these arguments are more subtle. One difficulty is best brought out by constructing an argument analogous to (A) or (B) with respect to the character of the properties under discussion and comparing the arguments for adequacy. Consider the following arguments :(C)(1) Smith believes Hitler to be a mass murderer .(2) Smith does not believe Adolf Schicklgruber to be a mass murderer .Therefore:(3) Adolf Schicklgruber ≠ Adolf Hitler .As it happens, however , Adolf Schicklgruber == Adolf Hitler , so the argument cannot be right . Or consider another instance of the general argument form where the property taking the place of F is a complex property concerning what John believes or knows :(D )(1) Aspirin is known by John to be a pain reliever.(2) Acetylsalicylic acid is not known by John to be a pain reliever .Therefore:(3) Aspirin ≠ acetylsalicylic acid.And one final example more closely analogous to the arguments at Issue: (E)(1) Temperature is directly apprehensible by me as a feature of material objects.(2) Mean molecular kinetic energy is not directly apprehendable by me as a feature of material objects.Therefore:(3) Temperature ≠ mean molecular kinetic energy.These arguments fail because being-recognized-as-a-something or being-believed-to-be-a-something is not a genuine feature of the object itself , but rather is a feature of the object as apprehended under some description or other or as thought about in some manner. Having a certain mass is a property of the object, but being-thought-by-Smith-to-have-a-certain-mass is not a genuine property of the object. Such queer properties are sometimes called " intentional properties" to reflect their thought-mediated dependency . Notice that in (B) the property is being-knowable-by-the-various -external-senses, and in (A) the property is being-known -by-me-by-introspection . Both are sterling examples of thought-dependent properties .Now the arguments (C) through (E) are fallacious because they treat intentional properties as though they were genuine properties of the objects, and a mistake of this type is called the intentional fallacy. It is evident that the arguments designed to demonstrate the nonidentity of qualia and brain states are analogous to arguments (C) through (E). Consequently , they are equally fallacious, and the nonidentity of mental states and brain states cannot be considered established by arguments such as (A) and (B). The Discussion[13:29] herman Bergson: Whips his forehead.....[13:29] herman Bergson: phew...[13:29] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): whips her forehead too...[13:31] herman Bergson: the main point of the lecture is that thought dependent properties like knowable to the senses are treated as properties of real objects , like weight and mass are such properties[13:31] Mick Nerido: So we have mental states and brain states that cannot be proven identical?[13:31] herman Bergson: And I found this extensive quote too beautiful and clear that I didn't want to rephrase it[13:32] herman Bergson: No it is the other way around...[13:32] herman Bergson: the fact that I know what it is like to feel my toothache , and I only can know it,[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aaa like that if i think a thing work a certain way that doesn't mean that is the way it really works but how I THINK it works[13:33] Bejiita Imako: I get everything right[13:33] druth Vlodovic: I'm sure I could hook up some sort of detector that would tell me about your toothache[13:33] herman Bergson: while all dentists in the world can see the hole in the tooth and the infected nerves, whci make then conclude:this is a toothache, means that these to things are not identical...[13:34] druth Vlodovic: well, maybe not me personally[13:34] Bejiita Imako: because the dentist cant feel your pain[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Druth, but the claim is that YOUR personal knowledge of the pain can only be YOUR personal knowledge....[13:35] Bejiita Imako: only see and conclude that OUCH that gotta hurt![13:35] herman Bergson: so that is an EXTRA property which never can be detected by whatever tool or microscope[13:35] Mick Nerido: My personal mental state is identical to my brain state...[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Mick....[13:35] Bejiita Imako: you cant connect another persons senses to a osciloscope and measuring device that you can do with signals from ect a computer[13:36] druth Vlodovic: can't we?[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and get the exact meaning of that signal[13:36] Bejiita Imako: the way I feel it[13:36] herman Bergson: No Bejiita...we can not observe the subjective quality of an experience...[13:36] druth Vlodovic: ah, the interpretation you mean[13:37] Bejiita Imako: with a computer i can transmit data from one device to another for ex an mp3 in my computer can be transfered to my mp3 player and it will play exactly the same as my computer[13:37] herman Bergson: but this subjective aspect is thought dependent, so added to the object by thought...not a physical property of the experience itself[13:37] Mick Nerido: You bring all your personal history to every perception[13:37] Bejiita Imako: that you can't do with the senses[13:37] druth Vlodovic: sim suggested once that the mind could be thought of as the result of processes, solves a lot of problems[13:37] Bejiita Imako: transfer another persons feelings to you so you can feel them as well[13:38] Bejiita Imako: or what that person thinks[13:38] Bejiita Imako: is impossible[13:38] druth Vlodovic: you'd have to be able to duplicate all of the current processes in order to duplicate the specific eexperience[13:38] herman Bergson: that is the problem Druth, for that isn't true...[13:38] herman Bergson: I could duplicate you..but then there is a Druth 1 and a Druth 2[13:38] druth Vlodovic: oh?[13:39] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:39] herman Bergson: so Druth 2 will only have Druth 2 experiences....[13:39] Mick Nerido: Like our favorite songs have a different meaning to us than others...[13:39] herman Bergson: Druth 1 will never experience what Druth 2 experiences[13:39] Bejiita Imako: with a computer its possible as long the 2 cpus can process exactly the same data in exactly same way[13:39] druth Vlodovic: but if both druths had the exact same processes going on then they would be having the same experiences[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the 2 will read the information the same way[13:40] druth Vlodovic: only the differences between them would prevent them having identical experiences[13:40] Bejiita Imako: not possible with the mind between 2 persons[13:40] herman Bergson: No Bejiita....there always is the difference caused by the individuality of Druth 1 and 2[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Druth….that is what the arguments (A) and (B) claim[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and also no way to transfer from one mind to another, there is no "interface" that can do that isn the same way ex an usb port on your computer can[13:40] druth Vlodovic: yes, if one cpu is slower or produces a different amount of heat then they are not identical[13:41] herman Bergson: But that is only the case when you say that this personel feature of the experience , these qualia are properties of the mental states...[13:42] Mick Nerido: When 2 people read the same newspaper the info therein is identical[13:42] herman Bergson: But I claim that thought adds these properties to the mental state….[13:43] Bejiita Imako: id say tat the biggest ting that it is impossible is because there is no way to transfer the exact mind information to another person in the way digital data is transferred from one computer to another, that's why mind reading is impossible[13:43] herman Bergson: Well some of you collapsed already during the lecture.....[13:43] herman Bergson: It was an experiment to put you all through this...[13:44] herman Bergson: At least you have seen an example of professional philosophical analysis and the use of logic...[13:44] Bejiita Imako: it was advanced complex but very interesting and i think i got a grasp of what it was all about[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:44] herman Bergson: I would suggest, if you want to get a better grip on it, read the blog ...[13:45] Bejiita Imako: have to read on it some more indeed[13:45] Bejiita Imako: lot of things[13:46] Bejiita Imako: but as i see it i conclude it all means that because i think a thing is in a certain way that doesnt have to mean its the true state its simply what i believe it to be[13:46] herman Bergson: The theme of the text is pretty clear....the arguments have fallen victim of a fallacy and thus dont prov ethat brain states and mental states can not be identical[[13:46] herman Bergson: I have to watch my tongue![13:46] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hmm? why we fall?[13:46] Bejiita Imako: i still use the fall thing from Burn[13:46] Bejiita Imako: its damn funny[13:46] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°[13:46] Qwark Allen: lol[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: omg[13:46] Bejiita Imako: lol[13:46] herman Bergson: I hope you enjoyed it yet...[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: was ist das?[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: the wort fall?perhaps[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: haha[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: jaaa[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:47] herman Bergson: Next time I'll be more gentle again to your minds[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] Qwark Allen: fall[13:47] druth Vlodovic: nah, we can take it[13:47] Qwark Allen: was very good discussion[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hahaha[13:47] druth Vlodovic: we'll wear tinfoil hats to cool our overworked minds[13:47] herman Bergson: So i See....lol[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yey! herman[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty so much[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********[13:47] Qwark Allen: got to read the all thing again[13:47] Bejiita Imako: HoOOOOOOoooooOOOOOooooOOOOooooOOOOoOOOOooooOOOOooOOOOooooOOOOooooOOOO..!!!! HAHAHAHAHAAHA[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Yeah!!!!![13:47] Mick Nerido: Thanks herman![13:47] Bejiita Imako: awesome[13:47] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`[13:47] Qwark Allen: thank you[13:48] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation…..Class dismissed ㋡[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] Bejiita Imako: oki cu soon[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye class :-)) so u on tuesday13:48] druth Vlodovic: have fun herman, and thanks fro the lecture[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman...het was een pittige les![13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke hermaaaaaaan bussi :-)[13:48] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡[13:48] Qwark Allen: i have to go to a partyy[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje I was well aware of that[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): needs a glas of wine now...[13:49] bergfrau Apfelbaum: #°*** BABA ***°#[13:49] herman Bergson: I guess so!
In 1994 Antonio R. Damasio, one of the world's leading neurobiologists, published his book "Descartes' Error - Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain". Because I was teaching my computer classes at an Academy of Fine Art, I was completely unaware of this important fact.All subjects we are discussing here today have emerged in neurobiology, evolutionary psychology and the philosophy of mind during the past 25 years, if we take the important work of Patricia Churchland "Neurophilosophy" (1986) as a milestone.But Descartes (1596 - 1650) was born more than 400 years ago? Yet, the modern conception of the philosophy of mind begins with his work.This French philosopher articulated a crucial distinction between two kinds of substances, mental and physical. This was a really convenient solution for a growing problem.The world had become a world of physical science in his time. No longer was the world explained by referring to the Hand of God or mysterious witchcraft or alchemy.The world had become a world of mechanically explicable processes, simple chains of cause and effect, a world where the saying became stronger and stronger: "I first want to really see it, before I gonna believe it."In 2003 Damasio published another book: "Looking for Spinoza - Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain". In Dutch the title became "Het Gelijk van Spinoza" (The Rightness of Spinoza). A reference to Decartes' Error.Was Descartes in error? In fact extracted the mind from matter by his famous "Cogito, ergo sum." (I think, therefore I exist.) For existing you only have to be aware of your thoughts. You don't need a material body for that…… that "material body" can be just an imagination, a thought itself.So he came to the conclusion that the physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics and….that the mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness. For this conclusion he had strong arguments: a basic principle from Leibniz, the “indiscernibility of identicals”: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing—then anything true of one is true of the other. Descartes argued: I can doubt that I have a body or any part of a body. I can even doubt that I have a brain—maybe that is part of the illusion. I cannot doubt that I have a mind. There is, therefore, something true of my mind that is true of no part of my body: I cannot doubt that I have it. It follows by Leibniz’s principle that my mind cannot be my body or any part of my body. My mind cannot be my brain. And thus was DUALISM born. Physical things, Descartes says, are always extended and occupy space. Mental things do not have physical dimension in the same way. Spinoza as a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part.That is why Spinoza definitely was not liked by the church. Descartes had his problems with the church, but his dualism saved the soul and gave the physical realm to science.In 1984 John Searle, a leading philosopher of mind, formulated the problem of Dualism thus:At the moment, the biggest problem is this: We have a certain commonsense picture of ourselves as human beings which is very hard to square with our overall 'scientific' conception of the physical world. We think of ourselves as conscious, free, mindful, rational agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of mindless, meaningless physical particles. Now, how can we square these two conceptions? How, for example, can it be the case that the world contains nothing but unconscious physical particles, and yet that it also contains consciousness? How can a mechanical universe contain intentionalistic human beings – that is, human beings that can represent the world to themselves? How, in short, can an essentially meaningless world contain meanings?Was Descartes showing us a real problem or was he really mistaken and made he us look for centuries in the wrong direction?The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that in the next lecture...:-))[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: ok interesting..:)[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours[13:24] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): we seem to be driven to think that like should have a meaning[13:24] Zinzi Serevi: it has a meaning when we give it and only then[13:24] herman Bergson: what do you mean aristotle[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): when we look for meaning, why would there be meaning?[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes..but what is meant to say is that when giving a meaning to something...it is a representation in our mind of the intended object[13:26] herman Bergson: No...we create meaning by reflecting on the world around us...[13:26] herman Bergson: That is a special about consciousness...[13:26] herman Bergson: We can represnt the world in our mind[13:26] herman Bergson: And think about it....[13:27] herman Bergson: We have symbols...like the word chair....and we can think about it, even when there is no chair around...[13:28] herman Bergson: But that is just one of the complex faculties of the mind[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes its objective representation in our subjective minds[13:28] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is our weird experience....[13:28] herman Bergson: that we really have the feeling that the mind , our consciousness is something apart from our body[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): of course I feel that is true[13:29] herman Bergson: And descartes took it one step further....[13:30] herman Bergson: He even thought that the mental was not material...[13:30] herman Bergson: Next lecture I'll show you that it got him into serious trouble[13:31] herman Bergson: serious[13:31] herman Bergson: Hi Ciska:-)[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought can not be touched, how could it be material?[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: hello & sorry :([13:31] Ciska Riverstone accepted your inventory offer.[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...that is the odd thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: how to understand that....[13:32] herman Bergson: material things are visible...thoughts seem to be invisible for instance[13:32] herman Bergson: and another thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: we all can see the objects around us....[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): like love we can only touch the objective manifestations of it[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you cannot touch thoughts but you can prove that there is happening something in your brain[13:32] herman Bergson: but nobody can see my private thoughts[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh sure Siggi....[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: thank god..:P[13:33] herman Bergson: Dont worry...we'll get to that definitely[13:34] herman Bergson: But the question is ..more or less....is it Descartes or is it Spinoza :-)[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but is the brain only reacting to our minds?[13:34] herman Bergson: No Aristotle....the brain generates the mind....[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought must be the creator[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): or the brain must be the creator of mind[13:35] herman Bergson: The brain is just an interesting biological process....[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain is just a machine[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): brain[13:36] herman Bergson: that is a metafor Aristotle...[13:36] herman Bergson: what do you mean by it?[13:36] herman Bergson: The brain is a biological organism ...not a machine[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes the fuel is the mind[13:36] herman Bergson smiles[13:37] herman Bergson: Well..that will gonna be a debate Aristotle....for the future...[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, it is just a feeling I have[13:37] herman Bergson: for I 'll try to hold the thesis that the brain generates the mind.....or in other words...the mind is a feature of the brain[13:38] Mick Nerido: I agree the mind spings from the brain[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL, I am in opposition to that of course, but have no proof[13:38] herman Bergson: That is not a problem Aristotle....[13:39] herman Bergson: But I think your opposing view will be fundamentally put to the test in the coming lectures :-)[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I only seek proof that I am right or wrong[13:39] herman Bergson: But you knew that ...as I made my basic assumptions clear in the very first lecture of this project :-)[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...right or wrong….don't know whether that is the right way to approach the issue....[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, just traveling with you to the end :)[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): if someone offrs proof then I am able to refine my philosophy[13:41] herman Bergson: We know little ..and philosophically we are constant in debate with reality[13:41] herman Bergson: I think it is more a matter of plausability....[13:42] herman Bergson: and from that respect..productivity for scientific research for instance[13:42] Mick Nerido: Duality is dead, mind and brain are one?[13:42] herman Bergson: sssttttt Mick.....[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am merely a pirate collecting treasure[13:42] Ortwin Sveiss: but when we ourselves are real, how can we debate with something we´re part of?[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): who said duality is dead, the one who want it to be dead?[13:42] herman Bergson: .[13:43] herman Bergson: Ortwin....you mean ..the mind is evaluating the mind?[13:43] herman Bergson: Ultimate bellybutton staring???[13:43] Ortwin Sveiss: yes[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: *G*[13:43] herman Bergson: Well there is an answer to that question....[13:44] herman Bergson: A bit complicated..but I'll give it a try.....[13:45] herman Bergson: We have two things..... the real world around us...that is...the answer to the question what is....we call it the ontology....[13:45] herman Bergson: Hi Aya :-)[13:45] Aya Beaumont: hello professor. =)[13:46] Ortwin Sveiss: aha well with two parties a debate is possible[13:46] herman Bergson: no no...wait...[13:47] herman Bergson: the second thing we have is knowledge about what is....[13:47] herman Bergson: that is called the epistemology....[13:48] herman Bergson: The problem you refer to is....how can a personal mind have objective knowledge of THE MIND, because he only has its own mind[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the argument within is between our subjective selves and our objective selves[13:48] herman Bergson: exactly Aristotle....[13:49] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I say brain and mind or consciousness is the same thing as e.g. fire and heat or fire and light[13:49] Ortwin Sveiss: yes, and why should we separate ourselves or the knowlegde within us from ontology by introducing epistemology?[13:50] Aya Beaumont: I don't know why having an understanding of our own minds would be any more impossible than say, touching one's own hand.[13:50] herman Bergson: Fisrt Siggi.....there you touch the right button...we'll get to that in next lectures[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): before each of those things you meantine Siggi you must place the Sun for either one[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Aya.....[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): mentioned*[13:51] herman Bergson: I am not introducing epistemology.....that we can KNOW things is just a fact ...and we call it epistemology in philosophical circles[13:51] herman Bergson: but the whole issue is about subjective and objective....[13:52] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of the mind....[13:52] herman Bergson: that is..knowledge..independent of a particular observer...[13:52] Aya Beaumont: Whenever we do things, ourself is the one thing we always take into account. The mind, while obviously not able to have DETAILED information on how our minds work, we can learn the principles of it just fine.[13:52] herman Bergson: Thsi is getting complicated.....[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): surely modern science will invent a "mindscope"[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: of the brain yes- but not of the mind.[13:53] herman Bergson: There Ciska......!!!! that statement....[13:53] Aya Beaumont: Yes, of the MIND. =) The mind is a direct expression of our brain.[13:53] herman Bergson: Again a bookshelf long :-)[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: not only one[13:53] Aya Beaumont: There is, quite literally no difference between them.[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we better slow down....[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain being organic tissue creates the mind?[13:54] herman Bergson: Aya you tickle every nerve in me....but I can make them only fire in new lectures ^_^[13:54] Aya Beaumont giggles.[13:55] Aya Beaumont: Thank you, professor.[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....at least that I can say[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): that is just a magical as the mind creating the brain[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:55] Aya Beaumont: The brain is ALL that we are, and ALL that we are is the brain.[13:55] herman Bergson: So let's summarize...[13:55] herman Bergson: At least ortwin has a good point....[13:56] herman Bergson: how can a subjective mind have knowledge of THE MIND....[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): perhaps that is my problem, I have relegated the brain to be just a worker[13:56] Aya Beaumont: And it's pointless to talk about a mind unless you equate it to the functioning of the brain. =)[13:56] herman Bergson: I know...Aya...but it is the way you formulate your view which is a whole debate....[13:57] Aya Beaumont: Heh. Okay.[13:57] herman Bergson: which is a second issue we'll address in further lectures[13:57] herman Bergson: You were really good....![13:58] herman Bergson: Well you put a few things on my desk to come up about with good explanations :-)[13:58] herman Bergson: But don't worry..:-)[13:59] Aya Beaumont: I look forward to those lectures then. =)[13:59] herman Bergson: There are real good answers to our questions..[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: did you read Alva Noe Herman?[13:59] herman Bergson: No..not familiar with the name[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~noe/an_writing.html[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[14:00] herman Bergson: OK!!![14:00] herman Bergson: I love such input :-)[14:01] herman Bergson: You really were a very good class today.....thank you all for your participation.....[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to relax :-)[14:01] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor :)[14:01] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thank you[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you and good night[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): goodnight Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks herman[14:02] herman Bergson: You too ciska[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: bye Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: goodnight all[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am off, good night everyone[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Aristotle...[14:02] herman Bergson: take care[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: yes me too good night[14:10] Mick Nerido: Sorry i was busy[14:16] herman Bergson: You were excused Mick...:-)[14:17] Mick Nerido: I tried my best to be here it was a great subject today
The title of this project is "The Mystery of the Brain". This means that it is not a 100% philosophical project, but an interdisciplinary one which involves, evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, cognitive psychology and philosophy.Our premise is a materialistic starting point: We are our brain. All what we call mental is produced by that brain. Of course we'll discuss this premise extensively, but not yet.With the topic of lie detection we enter a very sensitive area. What has been hidden inside our skull since the origins of mankind, can now be revealed.Everything that we regard as private, can be shown in an fMRI scan. Behind me you see the picture of the brain of a liar.There also other techniques, which use electrodes on de skull. And it is already discovered, that it takes 200 milliseconds more to prepare a lie in the brain than the truth.This neurorevolution raises serious questions about the relation between the state and the individual. Where begins our privacy? Can we be forced to undergo a fMRI scan?And what will happen in court? Has the accused to allow a fMRI scan to demonstrate if he is lying. And the witnesses, shouldn't they be scanned too? What about the concept of guilt. Suppose we scan the brain of a murderer and ask him : "Did you kill that person?" and he answers "No, I didn't" (even tho we have a video of his crime) and his brain shows no special activity at all, not the "lie pattern"?The more we know how the brain works, how our actions are caused by our brain, the more urgent become questions after personal autonomy, responsibility and free will.By inventing the subconscious Freud already questioned our free will and responsibility for our actions. The deeper we can look into our brain and see causes and effects, the bigger such questions become.Patricia Churchland, neurophilosopher at the University of San Diego, suggest that it is about time that we revise our metaphysical concept of free will.Her idea is that instead we should talk about self-control. A less vague quality, which as we can see, manifests itself in varying degrees.Neuroscientists can specify which brain structures are involved in the control of all kinds of behavior and how they can be weakened or reinforced.The activities concerning lie detection have gone commercial already. We keep on dreaming of unmasking the lie. Cephos is one of these companies, which will help you.On their homepage we read:- quoteCephos employs experienced professionals who are recognized as experts in their respective fields and are available to testify in court. We have developed the latest, most scientifically advanced, brain imaging techniques for scientifically accurate lie detection. The methods have been featured in international print, national television shows and we have been awarded U.S. patents based on our technology. The array of services we offer allows the most innovative approaches to uncover the truth. That's why law firms, corporations, and individuals turn to Cephos for professional, responsible, and dedicated services.-end quote.Go now to http://www.cephoscorp.com/ and watch the 4 minutes video. See for yourself…… and if you haven't had enough, have a look at http://www.brainwavescience.com/ or read this article http://www.damninteresting.com/brain-fingerprinting or http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/issues/mental_surveillance.htm The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: But have a look at that video...[13:26] herman Bergson: I'll wait the 4 minutes……………[13:31] herman Bergson: Did you look at the video?[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:31] Adriana Jinn: yes[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:31] herman Bergson: It scared me...[13:31] Anja Tigerfish: yes[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why?[13:31] Mick Nerido: very scary...[13:32] herman Bergson: Well...first...the blood pumping theory….[13:32] herman Bergson: completely unclear what areas of the brain were active and why[13:32] Mick Nerido: A persons mind is private like his home . No?[13:32] herman Bergson: well Mick..as you saw....his wife lives there now too ^_^[13:33] Mick Nerido: lol[13:33] Bejiita Imako: i guess if u in general answer uncomfortable questions will give same activity in blood flow no matter if true or false[13:33] herman Bergson: Could be true Bejiita[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and thus give uncorrect conclusions[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): he already knew the questions[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes that is the procedure...[13:34] herman Bergson: the client studies the questions in advance[13:34] Bejiita Imako: that seemed a bit wierd too[13:34] herman Bergson: But what was so scary to me was that this couple came for an answer and in fact didnt get it...[13:35] herman Bergson: No no....it is good to have knowledge of the questions....the brain can't lie...[13:35] Bejiita Imako: meaning the company is a scam thats just after your wallet[13:35] herman Bergson: to some extend I would say yes...[13:36] herman Bergson: To give you a reason....[13:36] herman Bergson: when you swallow during answering the questions...your brain will become active[13:36] herman Bergson: and screws up the test because of the 'blood pumping'[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): omg[13:37] Adriana Jinn: well[13:37] Mick Nerido: Like lie dectators, some can fool it[13:37] herman Bergson: yes Beertje...you must absolutel lie still.....not a muscle may move[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): if you talk you move[13:38] herman Bergson: answers are given by mouseclick....know motoric part of the brain[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes also do fMRIs make awful loud banging noises due to the superconductors turning on and of and stressing the brain[13:38] Bejiita Imako: i thing even u need hearing protection as it can be as loud as 120 db[13:39] herman Bergson: Well.....at least you have seen a glimpse of our future...[13:39] Mick Nerido: Could this be used in capital punishment as a recourse of last resort?[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes...Mick.....[13:39] herman Bergson: The courts in the US do not yet accept this evidence....[13:39] Mick Nerido: If you lie the machine kills you[13:40] herman Bergson: that will be the 2.0 model Mick[13:40] Mick Nerido: lol[13:40] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:40] herman Bergson: we are just working on version 1.0[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you laugh..but it COULD be possible[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes....[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): who is to establsih that the machine is 100%accurate? there seems to be always an element of doubt[13:41] Mick Nerido: brave new world indeed[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: think so too Aristotle[13:41] herman Bergson: as I said Aristotle...when you swallow during the test all goes wrong...[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): especially in a capital punishment decision[13:41] Mick Nerido: best 2 out of 3 tests[13:41] herman Bergson: But look at the Brain Fingerprinting material....[13:42] herman Bergson: the brain produces certain waves when seeing something familiar[13:42] herman Bergson: so when you show the criminal the face of his victim the brain will react if he has seen that face[13:43] herman Bergson: But what if it is the face of his sister?[13:43] herman Bergson: And so on....[13:43] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I think commercially it will be very beneficial for marketers, in the legal arena I am extremely supect[13:43] Bejiita Imako: yes can be anyone he knows then he react to[13:44] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): suspect[13:44] herman Bergson: However...this is our future....the brain will be the place to be...[13:44] Mick Nerido: I'll buy stock in Cephos[13:44] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Orwell was a smart man[13:45] herman Bergson: What was most remarkable was that as soon as someone had found something in lie detection....they went commercial...started a company...[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Big Brother is watching you?[13:45] herman Bergson: Cephos and Brain Fingerprinting are the leading companie in the business...[13:45] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and manipulating you for sure, Beertje[13:45] Mick Nerido: there goes job interview lies[13:46] herman Bergson: yes indeed Mich....thy just put you in a scanner[13:46] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL who will find jobs now?[13:46] Mick Nerido: the ones who lie least?[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: or most[13:46] herman Bergson: no..only scanner operators[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: depends on job.[13:47] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): are they the best employees, tath is the philosophical question[13:47] Mick Nerido: Buy you way in[13:47] herman Bergson: Main question is privacy.....[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and when Cephos is lying?[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehehe[13:48] herman Bergson: It will suffer of blood pumping Beertje :-)[13:48] herman Bergson: But just think about it.....[13:48] herman Bergson: what has been our personal domain since the beginning of mankind....[13:48] Mick Nerido: good for airline scanning[13:48] herman Bergson: is going to be invaded too[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): mankind has always methods to pull the truth out of you..[13:49] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Shall we all have an international barcode with the results of our last MRI for all to read our 'label'[13:50] herman Bergson: Was just thinking that Beertje....they dont need to torture the person anymore when they can use the fMRI scanner[13:50] Mick Nerido: good idea Aristotle[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hmm..the only possitive thing[13:50] Bejiita Imako: as long u can get the technology working[13:51] Bejiita Imako: as said that damn "blood pumping" theory doesnt hold at all[13:51] Bejiita Imako: need some better stuff[13:51] herman Bergson: It scared me Bejiita[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what about people with a high blood presure?[13:51] Bejiita Imako: or everyone will be accuseed to be a terrorist[13:51] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): wont need religion anymore,the barcode will say whether we are good or bad[13:51] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): all hail the MRI[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no..ari...it just tells us if we are lying[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): telling the truth about our misbehave is the truth[13:52] Adriana Jinn: .)))) [13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and the neuroscientists become the new clergy[13:52] herman Bergson: Well my friends......[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...[13:53] Mick Nerido: Mind priests[13:53] herman Bergson: I never ended a lecture with an uneasy feeling[13:53] herman Bergson: but this time I do....[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): did you tell the truth about this Herman?[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL[13:54] Anja Tigerfish: hahahahaaaa[13:54] Bejiita Imako: hahaha[13:54] Ciska Riverstone laughs[13:54] herman Bergson: feels his blood pumping...[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): scan his barcode[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes I did Beertje[13:54] Mick Nerido: one of the best lectures I heard[13:54] Bejiita Imako: aaa indeed[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): smiles[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Mick Nerido: No lie[13:54] Adriana Jinn: very interesting yes[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: interessting as always - thank you herman[13:55] herman Bergson: That is no lie![13:55] Bejiita Imako: but hope for sure this detector practice wont develop in a bad way[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:55] Adriana Jinn: thanks much herman[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): very stimulating Professor, thank you[13:55] Bejiita Imako: noone is messing inside my mind without permission at least[13:55] Bejiita Imako: picking out whatever they want[13:56] Bejiita Imako: and not my harddrives either[13:56] Bejiita Imako: my stuff is my stuff[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I fear they mess with our minds straight from the cradle[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty, herman and class! was interesting, again once![13:56] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:56] Bejiita Imako: very[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: Have a great day/ night everyone[13:56] herman Bergson: Thank you all...[13:56] Adriana Jinn: bye all and thanks[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana[13:57] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): bye Adriana[13:57] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: •´¨*•.¸.♥ Bye Bye ♥.¸.•*¨`•[13:57] Bejiita Imako: hugs all[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: yeeahhh...huggy and kissy for all[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see u hursday[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: *-*rOfl*-*[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: *-*r0fl*-*[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye bye:)[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: bybye all[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: Tschüss machs gut bis zum nächsten Mal [13:57] Anja Tigerfish: bye[13:57] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I willsee if I can even TP now LOL[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: ______ ()*"*()___[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: _____("(~¸¸~)")___[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: Müde bin ich,geh zur Ruh,[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: mache meine Augen zu.[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: Erst das Rechte,dann das Linke,[13:57] Anja Tigerfish: Gute Nacht und winke winke [13:57] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Good Bye![13:57] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): gentle folks[13:58] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Good Bye![13:58] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Good Byeeeee!!![13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): biss zum naechsten mahl Bergie[13:58] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): EVERYBODY!!! :D[13:58] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thanks again Herman[13:58] herman Bergson: You are welcome, Aristotle
