skip to main |
skip to sidebar
According to John Searle in his book "The Mystery of Consciousness" (1997), it seems that the greatest single philosophical obstacle to getting a satisfactory account of consciousness is
our continued acceptance of a set of obsolete categories, and an accompanying set of presuppositions that we have inherited from our religious and philosophical tradition.
We start off with the mistaken assumption that the notions of "mental" and "physical," of "dualism" and "monism," of "materialism" and "idealism" are clear and respectable notions as they stand,and that the issues have to be posed and resolved in these traditional terms.
We also suppose that the notion of scientific reduction - by which complex phenomena can be explained by, and in some cases eliminated in favor of, the basic mechanisms that make them work - is clear and presents few difficulties.
We then notice that consciousness, our ordinary states of sentience and awareness when we are awake, as well as our states of dreaming when we are asleep, seem very peculiar when we compare them with such "physical" phenomena as molecules or mountains.
Compared to mountains and molecules, consciousness seems "mysterious," "ethereal," even "mystical."
Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.
Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity.
Many philosophers believe that if you grant real existence to consciousness you will be forced to some version of "dualism,"
the view that there are two metaphysically different kinds of phenomena in the universe, the mental and the physical.
Indeed for many authors, the very definition of dualism implies that if you accept, in addition to such "physical" phenomena as mountains, "mental" phenomena such as pains, you are a dualist.
But dualism as traditionally conceived seems a hopeless theory because, having made a strict distinction between the mental and the physical, it cannot then make the relation of the two intelligible.
It seems that to accept dualism is to give up the entire scientific worldview that we have spent nearly four centuries to attain. So, what are we to do?
So far John Searle, who thus outlines the program, that lays ahead of us.
There still are philosophers, who accept dualism as the real solution of the problem of consciousness. One great name here is David J. Chalmers.
But in contemporary philosophy the most common move is to insist that materialism must be right and that we must eliminate consciousness by reducing it to something else.
Favorite candidates for the phenomena to which consciousness must be reduced are brain states described in purely "physical" terms and computer programs.
Searle takes an interesting position in relation to the pragmatic and deliberate choice I made for materialism and possibly a kind of reductionism.
A good example of this reductionism is the discussion about free will. Some neuroscientists deny the existence of free will, because certain brain states are ahead of our consciousness of these states.
Before I am conscious of wanting to move my arm, there has taken place already certain brain activity, which indicates motor action.
Ok, let me assume Searle's view as leading principle for the last stage of our quest:
"consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon. It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."
And to conclude this lecture and this year,I have granted myself with a nice Christmas holiday, which means that my next lecture will be Tuesday, January 3, 2012. ^_^
The Discussion
[13:22] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yay!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you all..... ㋡
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Mistyowl Warrhol: A conscious act? :-)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: it sure have been an interesting year
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] neret Emor: thanks for the lecture, herman
[13:23] herman Bergson: my pleasure neret
[13:23] Farv Hallison: I don't do photosynthesis myself
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any questions left...
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:23] herman Bergson: the floor is yours
[13:23] Mick Nerido: Nice summation
[13:23] Clerisse Beeswing: wow end of year already
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you fot all the wonderful lessons this year Herman
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): jan 3 nice
[13:24] Clerisse Beeswing: you have been so great professor and everyone else too
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we have a lot to think about during christmas holiday
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: been really nice this
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh this is always an interesting class
[13:24] herman Bergson: blushes a little...
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for years now
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehehe
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ideed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: very nice
[13:25] herman Bergson: We reached the 5th year of our lectures and crossed the border of 300 too
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: and got a good insight in everything
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: ohhh my gosh
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I think i have been to about 270??
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): more or less
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: our brains might explode from some much thinking
[13:25] Mistyowl Warrhol: Nice, wish I hadn't missed the others.. but looking forward to future ones :-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: at least Gemma!
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: hreman has been at all of them
[13:25] neret Emor: same here, mistyowl
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i just say i know that the more classes the more questions come up and allso the same ones all the time
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): over and over
[13:26] herman Bergson: that is a good thing Gemma....
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the more we learn the less we understand
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: Isnt that the purpose, not to teach what we know, but to lead us to learn more?
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): end of next year you have even more questions gemma:)
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and the farther we get from graduating
[13:26] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that Gemma....
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahaa
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think you begin to see more and more nuances...
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is true
[13:26] Clerisse Beeswing: lol nope I will never graduate from learning
[13:27] neret Emor: me neither xD
[13:27] DOMINATRIX Babii: life is one long lesson
[13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): nor me:)
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the backbone of our class is behind us on the wall
[13:27] Clerisse Beeswing: very true dominatrix
[13:27] neret Emor: the lesson finish just in the grave
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we always go back to them
[13:27] herman Bergson: it may cause a feeling of knowing less and less...but in fact you see much more...
[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: true herman
[13:27] neret Emor: very true
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and the more you see the more new questions come up
[13:28] herman Bergson: It shows you that you can't settle such questions with funny one-liners
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but in general you know more and more
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but that in turn raises new questions and so on
[13:28] herman Bergson: Oh I feel lost now and then myself....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: guess that is how it it
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: is
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: the more you know the more you doubt
[13:29] herman Bergson: looking at all the literature I have....
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: if the number of question grows proportional to what we see more, its hard to see anything
[13:29] herman Bergson: I would look at it that way, Sybyle....
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we will see Sybylle..herman will leed us..
[13:29] neret Emor: but is the same along humanity history, we leanr and make lot of mistakes and its like each answer take u to the new question
[13:29] Farv Hallison: All the trees obscure my view of the forrest.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Just take my appoach of this philosophical problem....
[13:30] neret Emor: and curiousity makes us very special
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry:-( but i have to much lag today. happy holidays Class! :-)))
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): speaking of trees again
[13:30] herman Bergson: of course I have no clear cut answers...
[13:30] Mick Nerido: Thanks time for me to go
[13:30] DOMINATRIX Babii: and some people never learn from the mistakes in history :)
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok bergie
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): you too
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: One has to know enough to be able to ask questions, the more they learn the more and deeper the questions.
[13:30] herman Bergson: but I make a pragmatic decision....
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): /merry
[13:30] neret Emor: very true :D
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: **** YODEL **** HOLLA REI DULI JÖ *** YODEL ***
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: and then I put my view to the test
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ⁂•:._.:•⁂MERRY CHRISTMAS⁂•:._.:•⁂
[13:30] Clerisse Beeswing: Best of holidays to all
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i have to go..have a merry Christmas or Saturnalia:)))
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: same to you ㋡
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:31] neret Emor: merry christmas gemma
[13:31] herman Bergson: Not to get my view confirmed....but to get my view tested
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): beertje
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: cu beertje
[13:31] DOMINATRIX Babii: have a lovely holiday everybody:)
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: May we keep learning into the next and next new year
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: as you do, Beertje
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: same to you Beertje
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we will
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: ·Bye Bertje
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye bye
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: Thanks professor
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: looking forward to it
[13:31] neret Emor: mery crhistmas beertje
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...Qwark isnt online. I guess I have a merry crowd here now....
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hugs beertje
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: I have to go too
[13:31] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Beertje :-) hugs
[13:32] herman Bergson: So....I all wish you the happiest holidays...!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bye then Notro
[13:32] neret Emor: marry xmas as well, nitro :)
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman
[13:32] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman ㋡
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard smiles
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard: thank you
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i hope we will see you dancing over the holidays one day
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: have a good christmas and new year Herman
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and cu after that next year
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:32] herman Bergson: Have yourself a merry little Xmas and a happy New Year ^_^
[13:32] DOMINATRIX Babii: see you in 2012 :)
[13:32] neret Emor: see u soon bejiita
[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): if i cannot make the 3rd will be there on the 5th
[13:33] Nitro Fireguard: Happy christmas to all the philosophers
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:33] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation!
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: thanks for take us with you, Herman
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok bye then
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
[13:34] neret Emor: bye bejiita
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: and my outfit is Beertje's christmas one from her store :-)
[13:34] DOMINATRIX Babii: bye bejiita:)
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:34] Farv Hallison: good bye all you lovely philosophers.
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Farv
[13:34] neret Emor: bye farv, have a nice xmas
[13:35] herman Bergson: Bye Farv..have a good time!
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: If I dont see anyone before.. TC, be safe and healthy, have a happy holiday season.. and warm New Year.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: good holidays to you, Herman
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: and we will meet again in 2012
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: yes have wonderful holidays Herman and all others
[13:36] herman Bergson: Will be an interesting 2012 Sybyle...
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I am sure
[13:36] neret Emor: see u the next class
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: enjoy your holidays
[13:36] herman Bergson: ok neret :-)
What are mental states? When we ask that question we immediately discover that language by its structure forces us in certain directions.
In the previous lecture we discovered that the asymmetry between the statements " I feel a pain" and "He feels a pain" causes considerable philosophical problems.
In the l920s and l930s,a group of philosophers called the 'Vienna Circle' developed a new account of the meaning of a statement.
A statement is a sentence which claims that the world is a certain way. "The Eiffeltower is in Paris" and "The moon is made of cheese" are both statements.
The first makes a (true) claim about the location of a famous landmark; the second makes a (false) claim about the constitution of the moon.
The theory of the meaning of statements advocated by the Vienna Circle is called verificationism. On this view, the meaning of any statement is its method of verification.
Members of the Vienna Circle insisted that the only way to show that a statement is true is by making sensory observation.
That rules out all First Person Perspective statements, for they are not publicly accessible for verification. So how do we establish the meaning and thence the truth of mental statements.
Another argument, that changed the character of the mind - body debate came from Wittgenstein (1889 - 1951) with his private language argument.
If Dualism were right, then my believing, seeing, imagining, and loving would be essentially inner and private, inaccessible to anyone else.
But that very claim was expressed using words we all know: believing, seeing, imagining, loving.
Words are learned by correcting incorrect uses and praising correct uses. We must have learned these words in that manner.
But if Dualism were right, these things would be inner and private, inaccessible to anyone else. If so, we could never have learned these words. We did learn those words; therefore, Dualism must be wrong.
If our language of mental states is not about some private inner experience, what is it about? One proposal is that talk of mental states is really a way of talking about behavior.
And this proposal is in perfect harmony with the method of verification to establish the meaning and truth of mental statements: we only need publicly observable behavior.
Thus the debate on the mind - body problem moved from the question about the stuff the mental is made of to establishing the meaning of mental statements.
This gave rise to what was called Analytical or Philosophical Behaviorism: the view that mental concepts are definable in behavioral terms, or dispositions to behave in a certain way under certain circumstances.
In psychology this philosophy was translated into methodological behaviorism by B. F Skinner (1904–1990).,What went on inside a person was not a subject for science.
The organism in interaction with its environment receives stimuli and produces responses. Thus the goal of psychology became the study of the relation between stimuli and responses.
Thus the mental seemed to be perfectly translated into sensory observable facts. The mind grasped by science.
However, as you may well expect, philosophical behaviorism wasn't the answer, nor in psychology methodological behaviorism.
There are serious arguments against behaviorism and I guess, that the most serious one is, that it had no answer to the question "What is consciousness?"
So…we are still in business as philosophers.
The Discussion
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:22] herman Bergson: The floor is yours
[13:22] herman Bergson: if you have questions or remarks
[13:23] You decline The Philosophy Class from A group member named herman Bergson.
[13:23] Paolo Rousselot: just notice the differences between exterior & interior observations & comments
[13:23] herman Bergson: what about it Paolo
[13:24] herman Bergson: Science is exterior only
[13:24] Paolo Rousselot: scattered throughout what you listed were obsevrations that reflected both positions
[13:24] Paolo Rousselot: again - wouldn't Jung disagree?
[13:24] herman Bergson: disagree with what?
[13:25] Paolo Rousselot: that all science is exterior only
[13:25] herman Bergson: oh yes...
[13:25] Paolo Rousselot: he seemed to have "verified" an interior journey that was replicable
[13:25] Mick Nerido: When one reads a book of fiction it can have a "real" world effect on us
[13:26] herman Bergson: unfortunately he doesn't meet the rigid verificationist standards
[13:26] Paolo Rousselot: and he might state that those who disagree haven't made tha same journey...
[13:26] Paolo Rousselot: either by choice or ability
[13:27] herman Bergson: that is not a sound argument....just the authority fallacy
[13:27] Paolo Rousselot: well, having "walked in the tall grass" I reserve the right to respectfully disagree
[13:27] Birric Forcella: Well, for behaviorists, there are no feelings or emotions. The behavior is all there is. So a behaviorist will take some gasoline, set a cat on fire (or a child) and observe the screaming and newling behavior. Does the cat (child) feel anything? Of course not. The behavior is all there is. that's basically what behaviorists do when they "cure" gays.
[13:27] Doodus Moose is Offline
[13:28] herman Bergson: cool example Birric...or hot actually
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: thats too easy argued
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes ..behaviorism isn't the answer to understand what the mind is or consciousness
[13:28] Sky Albanese: how many reported cat burnings have been atributed to behaviorists?
[13:29] herman Bergson: you have to ask the fire department that Sky,I dont know
[13:30] Birric Forcella: Lots of behaviorists in concentration camps - but also a lot of Jungians - the freudians were on the other side . . .
[13:30] Sky Albanese: i heard a lot of education is schools for kids with learning dificultys depends greatly on skinners work, that is a kid is given a small punishment for shoutings and fighting, and then a small reward for every good thing done, like sting and listing in class for 5 minutes
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: they didn't know that they are behaviorists
[13:30] Sky Albanese: very practical tool they say
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: I cannot fill completely the term behavior here in use
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well..at this moment scientifically it seems that th ereal name of Fraud is Fraud :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Freud
[13:31] herman Bergson: Behavior is any action of the organism Sybyle...
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: oki
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:32] Paolo Rousselot: is that solely an exterior action herman
[13:32] herman Bergson: As I said..behaviorism doesn't sell anymore :-)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: I think to try to take behavior as a indicator for mental reactions is worth trying
[13:32] Birric Forcella: Well, Freud asserted that human actions make sense when understood (interpreted) rightly - though you may fight over what is rightly there - Behaviorists assert that human actions are infinitely fungible - that any action can be tied to ANY stimulus. That means, human actions are basically meaningless. You decide who is right.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Paolo
[13:33] Sky Albanese: people say it doesn't explain the mind, but then what does? nothing
[13:33] herman Bergson: The relation stimulus response is questionable...
[13:33] Birric Forcella: I myself am on the side of making sense . . .
[13:34] herman Bergson: there is no law like relation...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: the problem with Freud is, his doctrines were good, but not his conclusions
[13:34] herman Bergson: if so it would be possible to predict how a person would respond on a stimulus...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:34] Sky Albanese: he also though if experience as a replacement for experimentation
[13:34] Sky Albanese: thought
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: but they had to try, that we can exclude
[13:35] herman Bergson: Suppose you go to a museum with a friend....
[13:35] Paolo Rousselot: a few years ago Big Dreams were quite a profound stimulus for me - it was my experience alone but very real nonetheless
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is exactly the point Paolo....
[13:35] Paolo Rousselot: k
[13:35] Sky Albanese: big dreams?
[13:35] herman Bergson: it was a private experience...
[13:36] Paolo Rousselot: yes Sky
[13:36] Birric Forcella: Behaviorism got superseded by cognitivism (which is an even more awful theory) because it was eventually recognized that learning occurs even without stimuli
[13:36] herman Bergson: exactly Birric
[13:36] herman Bergson: But well get to that in next lectures :-)
[13:36] Birric Forcella: okay
[13:37] herman Bergson: In fact the behavioristic approach tried to ignore the first person perspective of the mind....
[13:38] herman Bergson: discarding it as inaccessible for science
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yet it is there...the mind ..consciousness....a material universe...and we try to understand how this all goes together
[13:39] herman Bergson: soI guess I'll prepare some more lectures on this subject :-)
[13:39] Paolo Rousselot: (...and sometimes overlaps...)
[13:39] Birric Forcella: Vey nice
[13:39] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation...
[13:39] Birric Forcella: welcome
[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
Let us assume, that we use language to describe the world around us. This sounds simple, but when we turn to the philosophy of mind, we immediately run into philosophical problems.Just take these two simple statements: (1) "I feel pain" and (2) "He feels pain". There is a peculiar asymmetry: the difference between the First Person Perspective and the Third Person Perspective.Empirically, the mind is determined by neuronal states, which are supposed to characterize the brain. There neuronal states are therefor a property of the brain.Neuronal states of the brain are investigated empirically and related directly to different psychological and physiological functions.In a general way you could define the mind as the total of all our mental states.Mental states, however, can neither be investigated empirically nor related directly to neuronal states. Unlike neuronal states,mental states are not accessible in Third-Person Perspective, which makes their direct empirical investigation impossible. You can empirically investigate the truth of the statement "He is in pain", but that is impossible with "I am in pain". Only I have private access to my feeling of pain.Since they are accessible in First-Person Perspective only, mental states can neither be related directly to psychological and physiological functions nor to neuronal states. Due to the inability to directly relate mental states to neuronal states, mental states cannot be detected and recognized within the brain as being characterized by neuronal states. Both problems, empirical accessibility of mental states with respect to the brain and the empirical relation between brain states and mental states remain, therefore unclear. Both subjective experience and contents of mental states cannot be detected and recognized within the neuronal states and thus within the brain. For example, subjective experience of certain events within the environment cannot be related directly to the neuronal states of the brain.When I say "I see a blue shape" there may be activity in the visual cortex of the brain, but when you put me in a scanner you only see that. There will be no blue shape visible in my brain, although it really is in my mind.Epistemically, the mind is determined by mental states, which are accessible in First-Person Perspective. In contrast, the brain, as characterized by neuronal states, can be accessed in Third-Person Perspective.You see the asymmetry between the First and Third person Perspective now? Third Person Perspective focuses on other brains, not on my own brain.The funny thing is that the First Person Perspective gives me only access to my own mental states, but not to my own brain and its neuronal states. We are facing a peculiar problem here. While my mind is filled with First Person statements like "i see an apple", "I feel happy", neuroscience can only approach the brain from a Third Person perspective.How to solve this problem? A first attempt was to "translate" these First person statements into Third Person statements, because the Third Person Perspective is the perspective of the scientist.Next lecture we'll focus on the first attempt the get to the mind from a Third Person Perspective and deal with this First Person Perspective. This attempt was called Behaviorism.The Discussion[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you...[13:21] herman Bergson: any questions or remarks? The floor is yours[13:22] herman Bergson: You can address me in the Second Person ^_^[13:22] Widget Whiteberry: Why is it a problem that neuroscience can only approach the brain from a Third Person perspective?[13:23] herman Bergson: that is not the problem[13:23] Clint Pheocene: because the third person perspective is not a complete picture[13:23] Templeton Tigerpaw: If it does not register in neurons, it's not experienced. Period.[13:23] herman Bergson: the problem is the First person experience of the mind...[13:23] Bejiita Imako: thats really a thing i've thought about some times that you can never get access to the inner of another persons thoughts like if you would plug his external hard drive in your computer and get all files[13:23] Bejiita Imako: that is impossible with the mind[13:24] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita....[13:24] Bejiita Imako: if that was possible thought reading would be possible and it ismt[13:24] herman Bergson: The First person Perspective causes a lot of problems :-)[13:24] Templeton Tigerpaw: It actually is possible[13:24] Clerisse Beeswing: ahhh so third person sees all and feels all first[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Templeton....a Mind Melt like Spock does in StarTrek :-)[13:25] Bejiita Imako: wll you can program a machine to react to a certain brain wave pattern but you cant translate it like analog to digital and vice versa and suddenly see the object we think of[13:25] Templeton Tigerpaw: All you need is to find an objective way to tell if somebody is lying. Then you can believe any statement they make about their internal states. It's rather easy to tell is somebody is lying or hiding something.[13:25] Templeton Tigerpaw: It's then merely a matter of skill in asking questions[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: but thats only about lying..not about, if its pain is like yours[13:26] herman Bergson: That is not entirely true Templeton...[13:26] Templeton Tigerpaw: In principle there is no problem with access to other minds[13:26] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes like that fMRI and blood flow[13:26] herman Bergson: Even the fMRI scanner approach isn't waterproof...[13:26] Bejiita Imako: i saw recently when myth busters tested just that thing[13:26] Templeton Tigerpaw: This is why we can so easily communicate[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and managed to fool it[13:26] Clint Pheocene: yes there is a problem in principle because we do not yet have a theory about the nature of subjective experience[13:27] herman Bergson: Exactly Clint![13:27] Templeton Tigerpaw: You ARE the theory of subjective experienc[13:27] herman Bergson: That is my point today...[13:27] Bejiita Imako: they also named that it worked with bloodflow readout[13:27] Bejiita Imako: likse you said before[13:27] herman Bergson: on theone hand the Third perosn approach of science[13:27] herman Bergson: on the other hand that peculiar extra in First Person statements[13:27] Templeton Tigerpaw: MRIs can easily detect if you are lying. In fact, new experiements show that MRIs can show crude pictures of what you see[13:28] Templeton Tigerpaw: It's a matter of refining the technology[13:28] Templeton Tigerpaw: The problem of qualia is different, but I think it's a red herring[13:28] herman Bergson: That doesn't solve the problem Templeton....[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: if you know I like a film (not lying), you don't know in which way[13:29] herman Bergson: When the scanner shows some brain activity and the person says "I am not lying", who is telling the truth then?[13:29] Bejiita Imako: w if a certain signal always stands for a certain vision then you can basically do like in a computer and transfetr fron digital to analog sort of but translate from the brain wave pattern instead from binary data[13:29] Clint Pheocene: exactly sybyle[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: you even don't know what I meanwith "like"[13:29] Templeton Tigerpaw: Not lying about what?[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: to like the film[13:29] herman Bergson: Good observation Sybyle...indeed[13:30] herman Bergson: Well templeton...[13:30] herman Bergson: suppose somebody is in a scanner....[13:30] Templeton Tigerpaw: Qualia seem so problematic because we always only hear about red and green. The simple fact is that EVERYTHING is a quale. You are merely tackling the most difficult thing first, like forever contemplating the peak of a mountain and never seeing the slope that gets there.[13:30] herman Bergson: he tells something and the scanner says...that must be a lie[13:30] herman Bergson: and the person says "I am telling the truth"[13:31] Heinzi Gabe: a brain scan may reveal what i see and what i feel, but now how i experience the feeling or what i se[13:31] Heinzi Gabe: see*[13:31] herman Bergson: When you put the person under hypnosis he still says I am telling the truth[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Heinzi....[13:31] Templeton Tigerpaw: Where is the problem? So he is lying.[13:31] herman Bergson: The brain scan not even reveals WHAT you feel or see[13:31] herman Bergson: only that you feel or see in a certain way[13:31] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Hi Serg ㋡[13:32] Clint Pheocene: yes only weak correlations of blood flow[13:32] Sergeiana Yatsenko: oops[13:32] Sergeiana Yatsenko: hi[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yes you cant get the actual "data" out cause impossible to translate in that way[13:32] Bejiita Imako: like i said as from digital to analog[13:32] Mick Nerido: The scan shows an area of activity not truth or lies[13:32] herman Bergson: YEs Mick...[13:33] Templeton Tigerpaw: You can't have it both ways. Either our experinces are ENTIRELY represented in neuronal activity - or you must believe in the ghost in the machine, free will, and magic[13:33] herman Bergson: In a previous lecture we have looked at a short mvie about the use of that lie detector....[13:33] herman Bergson: Was really creepy...[13:33] herman Bergson: The woman wanted to know if her husband had cheated on her more than once[13:34] herman Bergson: the scanner said yes...[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm ad seems not to be foolproof as i saw on mythbusters[13:34] Templeton Tigerpaw: I'm really very much interested in your next lecture[13:34] herman Bergson: the man in all sincerety said no...[13:34] Bejiita Imako: Grant imahara fooled the machine[13:34] Mick Nerido: We work harder in brain when we lie[13:34] Templeton Tigerpaw: Yes, I agree, lie detectors do not work[13:35] herman Bergson: there is a correlation between the mind and the brain activity....[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ordinary polygraph test was very safe however cause the interogation and questions and the length of it makes imopssible to fool[13:35] herman Bergson: the mind must be a property of the brain....[13:35] Mick Nerido: That slight delay is an indication of a lie but not proof[13:35] Bejiita Imako: myth busters tested first that and then the fMRI[13:35] Templeton Tigerpaw: but that's not an argument against the principle of the thought. If you can decide on yes or no, it's only a matter of questioning skill to get the fullness of an experience - sine qualia[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and concluded[13:36] herman Bergson: But we are not able to see the link between neuronal activity and the statement I see a red spot[13:36] Bejiita Imako: classic polygraph impossible to beat, [13:36] Clint Pheocene: alcohol alone proves that the mind is a property of the physical brain[13:36] herman Bergson: smiles[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Clint...sometimes a painful observation ^_^[13:36] herman Bergson: especially the next morning :-)[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hehehehe[13:36] Sergeiana Yatsenko: alcohol loosens inhibitions...def..[13:36] Clint Pheocene: lol[13:37] Bejiita Imako: puking the first you do when waking up[13:37] Bejiita Imako: eew thats NOT nice[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hangover[13:37] Templeton Tigerpaw: As I said, the redness and blueness can and must be accessed differently - but again, it's also a matter of yes or no[13:38] herman Bergson: WEll I hope you get the picture...[13:38] Bejiita Imako: I think so[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:38] herman Bergson: the asymetry between th eFirst Person and Thirdd person perspective...[13:38] Templeton Tigerpaw: Essentially, the grounding of any experience in reality gives access to shared reality of experiences[13:39] herman Bergson: Our next step will be an attempt to get rid of these First Person statements...[13:39] herman Bergson: Well they are there, but scientifically not relevant[13:39] Bejiita Imako: you can for ex never tell if someone says something to you do he really mean it unless some strong emo-thing proves that[13:39] Templeton Tigerpaw: I understand your asymmetry, however, it's a very rock-bottom feature of the universe[13:39] herman Bergson: They have to be translated into third person statemments ore something like that[13:39] Bejiita Imako: cause you cant see what he is actually thinking[13:40] herman Bergson: I we do not succeed we seem to be stuck with a kind of dualism after all[13:40] herman Bergson: and that cannot be the case in a materialist theory of mind ^_^[13:41] herman Bergson: So ..next lecture about ..what todo with mental states :-)[13:41] Templeton Tigerpaw: If you look at a halloween mask from the inside and the outside - you can make it very very thin latex - so you are seeing the same on both sides - yet you are seeing different things - but every point of experience from the inside corresponds exactly to a point of experience on the outside[13:42] herman Bergson: Which means, TEmpleton?[[13:42] Templeton Tigerpaw: That's it's a matter of description[13:42] herman Bergson: But that is only a THird Person Perspective[13:43] herman Bergson: So a scientific issue....[13:43] Templeton Tigerpaw: We do not have the full translation algorithm yet - because we are too afraid to face the truth about pleasure and power[13:43] Mick Nerido: The inside is negative outside positive not the same but same[13:44] herman Bergson: Well..thank you all for you participation....[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe you got a few things again to think about...[13:44] Bejiita Imako: )[13:44] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:44] Widget Whiteberry: thank you so much. very interesting[13:44] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman![13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-)) see you Thursday! ty herman and class and all third persons. : -)[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: thank you herman[13:44] Clint Pheocene: great class...thanks[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********[13:44] Templeton Tigerpaw: You are welcome. I very much hope not to miss your next lectures[13:44] Clerisse Beeswing: Thanks herman[13:44] Chantal (nymf.hathaway): Thank you Herman![13:44] herman Bergson: next lecture we'll look at behaviorism as an attempt to deal with First Person statements[13:44] Bejiita Imako: now im going to beat an fmri machine[13:44] Bejiita Imako: lol[13:45] Sergeiana Yatsenko: wish i could hav gotte here sooner[13:45] Bejiita Imako: like mythbusters[13:45] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
We will consider another form of Dualism - property dualism. Whereas substance dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of substances in the world, property dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of properties in the world. When philosophers use the word "property" they mean, roughly, 'feature'.The ultimate thing we want to understand is consciousness, what it is and where it comes from. Descartes reasoned:1. Minds can be conscious2. No physical object can be consciousTherefore3. Minds are not physical objects.We already have seen that this conclusion leads us into a lot of difficult questions, of which of course the most difficult one is: what kind of stuff is the mind made of and how does this mind-stuff interact or is causally related to the physical body?Let's look at it from a different angle. Let's talk about the distinction between substances and properties. For our purposes, a substance is something which could be the only thing in the universe.My body is therefore a substance, for we can easily imagine a universe which contains only my body. On the other hand, having a mass of, say, 85 kg is not a substance.We cannot imagine a universe which contains 85 kg and NOTHING ELSE. So my body is a substance whereas having a mass of 85 kg is not. Having a mass of 85 kg is a property. More generally, substances have properties.We are quite used to this substance - property dualism. When somebody asks you "who is Mr. Johns?" you describe the person by enumerating a number of properties or features: hair is grey, eyes are blue, tall 1.85 m….etc.According to property dualism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain. The brain is a physical substance with various physical properties.For example, the typical brain weighs about one kilogram, contains billions of neurons, has a blood supply and so forth. That much is common ground.What is radical about property dualism is that it claims that, besides all these physical properties, the brain has some nonphysical properties.These include being conscious, being in pain, believing that it is Thursday today. In short, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain.Is this a way to maintain dualism? One of the important property dualism views is called epiphenomenalism.According to epiphenomenalism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain which are brought about by physical properties of the brain.The distinctive feature of this view is that the nonphysical properties of the brain do not, in turn, bring about physical states of the brain. This seems to solve the interaction problem of substance dualism to some extend.When you see some dangerous animal, you think "Help…danger!" but according to the epiphenomenalist,this thought itself doesn't do anything. It is only the physical states of the brain alone which cause you to run away.Is the mind such a feature of the brain indeed? We still run into the same questions as with substance dualism. How can the physical properties of the brain give rise to nonphysical properties of the brain?We still can ask what the features of nonphysical properties are; how we can observe them, what in the brain creates them, in what sense are they nonphysical?If it is true that mental states, e.g. thoughts or seeing a danger, do not cause physical action, but that it is the brain which does that, we have a problem.We have to give up a few rather common sense observations about ourselves: 1. Some mental states cause actions2. some mental states cause other mental states.Regarding 2 it would look like this according to the epiphenomenalist: You see a danger. This causes the thought "danger". Not your thought of danger causes your fear, but a further physical property of the brain makes the nonphysical property "fear" emerge from the brain.Does this mean that we should regard consciousness as a "epiphenomenon". just a side effect of the physical brain?The Discussionherman Bergson: So much for today :-)herman Bergson: The floor is yours Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::herman Bergson: .herman Bergson: Thank you Qwarkherman Bergson: This is an attempt to save dualism....herman Bergson: Is it saved?Qwark Allen: i`m not sureQwark Allen: but was a good try for sureMick Nerido: Very weird save...herman Bergson: yes but in my opinion you still keep the same problems as with substance dualismGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmmGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i doubt itherman Bergson: yes Mich...what sounds a bit odd is that consciousness is some kind of side effect of the physical brainherman Bergson: another question is about the semantics....herman Bergson: object + property statements....Lizzy Pleides: if it is a physical or nonphysical property , isn't that also a question of anatomy and histology and physiology?herman Bergson: the quintessential question is ...those properties....do they really exist independent of the mindGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): have to review propertiesherman Bergson: the point is....a tomato is an object.... it exists as a real thing outside the mind...herman Bergson: but when I say this tomato is red.......?herman Bergson: Redness....what is the ontological status of that?herman Bergson: the brain is conscious....herman Bergson: same questionherman Bergson: how do properties exist...?herman Bergson: a tomato doesn't need a conscious observer to exist...herman Bergson: its redness????Lizzy Pleides: detectionherman Bergson: to show the asymmetry…Mick Nerido: I see a tomato and I think "delicious" you might hate tomatos and think "bar vegi"herman Bergson: yes Mick....but can there be the mental state 'delicious' without the tomato?herman Bergson: can there be redness without this tomato....Mick Nerido: I think so yesherman Bergson: this line of questioning has along traditionherman Bergson: You say yes Mick..ok....herman Bergson: How do we see, detect, experience this redness?Mick Nerido: Redness is a light wavelenthLizzy Pleides: as a remind?Lizzy Pleides: it must have been an experience onceherman Bergson: Well Mick just study "The Knowledge argument" of Jackson...forgot his first name:)Mick Nerido: "Delicious" is a learned experience...herman Bergson: That is the most modern atttempt to proof that there must exist nonphysical propertiesherman Bergson: We'll get to that issue later...herman Bergson: What I now only want to bring to your attention isherman Bergson: that we take properties as such obvious things….herman Bergson: but when you really begin to ask questions, philosophical questionsherman Bergson: then properties are not at all such obvious thingsherman Bergson: How do properties exist?herman Bergson: Do they need a mind to be attributed to objects?herman Bergson: Is it a feature of the mind to "see" properties?Mick Nerido: So redness can exist without an observer and is independent condition in this view?herman Bergson: You say that red is a certain wavelength, Mick...Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): like the tree in the forestherman Bergson: well....suppose you never have seen a tomato....herman Bergson: But you know that wavelength X is called to show you redherman Bergson: So you know what red is....the property of an object....wavelength Xherman Bergson: but suppose all of a sudden someone showed you a tomato....herman Bergson: Then you say....ahhhhhh!!! so that is red!herman Bergson: then you know more...not only a wavelength but also another property of the tomatoherman Bergson: This is a very complex problem....herman Bergson: The word that goes with it is "Qualia"Sybyle Perdide: because a tomato is the sum of many propertiesherman Bergson: We'll discuss this issue later...Mick Nerido: If I was color blind to red and could not see red i would be in the dark, so to speak on rednessherman Bergson: Yes sybyle, what is that property "red" now...bergfrau Apfelbaum paid you L$100.Guestboook van tipjar stand: bergfrau Apfelbaum donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!Qwark Allen is OnlineSybyle Perdide: meaningless for yoherman Bergson: It would still be that specific wavelength Mick.you always could pick out red objects with the right equipmentherman Bergson: Well...I guess I am cracking your brains :-)Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• LOL ‚ô•herman Bergson: Maybe a good idea to dig into the term "property" and its history.herman Bergson: Dates back to Aristotle....Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): rightherman Bergson: In the middle ages it was the core of syllogistic logic....bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must go! byebye class! byebye Birthdayherman!herman Bergson: and today it is the child of the "qualia"Lizzy Pleides: bye bergieherman Bergson: Bye BergieCiska Riverstone: bye BergfrauGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye „ã° herman Bergson: so properties and qualia (= plural of quale) ....nice subject for some weekend reading :-)herman Bergson: and take a copy of the SL Newser too „ã°Ciska Riverstone: „ã°Lilah Morgenstern is Onlineherman Bergson: Thank you all for your attention and participationCiska Riverstone: thank you Hermanherman Bergson: Class dismissed „ã°Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursdaySybyle Perdide: thanks a lotGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): scrool down on the paperwolk Writer is OfflineGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): article about classMick Nerido: Thanks for the brain exercise!Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
In my research I came across something that was completely new to me. An attack on the principle, on which Descartes based his argument: the principle of indiscernibility of identicals. It is so exciting that I quote you the whole text.-Begin QUOTE: source Wikipedia (english)The principle of indiscernibility of identicals – that if two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties – is mostly uncontroversial. However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to his body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist.This argument is rejected by many modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity. Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via reductio ad absurdum, such as the following argument based on a secret identity: 1. Entities x and y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa. 2. Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact. 3. Lois Lane thinks that Clark Kent cannot fly. 4. Lois Lane thinks that Superman can fly. 5. Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly. 6. Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent. 7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:- Leibniz's law is wrong; or- A person's knowledge about x is not a predicate of x; or- The application of Leibniz's law is erroneous; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic, properties; or- What people think about are not the actual objects themselves; or- A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs. Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.[3]End QUOTEOf course I can give the the standard objections to dualism and I will, but like this attack on the principle which Descartes uses, you never read much about the semantics of Cogito ergo sum in the standard introductory textbooks on philosophy.But just take a minute to look at that statement "I think, therefore I am". If it is a proposition, or actually two propositions, one inferred from the other, then it must have a truth value. The propositions must be either TRUE or FALSE.Suppose that the propositions are true and then take the first two theses of the Tractatus of Wittgenstein:1 The world is everything that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.Thinking is a factual process…leads to being as some factual state. So far so good, but the process and state are depending on this "I". Where did Descartes find that "I"??? To what fact does this "I" refer to?Then I found an article by Jaako Hintikka ,a Finnish philosopher and logician, in the magazine "The Philosophical Review", Vol. 71,No. 1 (1962) and my heart jumped. Let me quote the first paragraph and you'll understand why.-begin QUOTE1. COGITO, ERGO SUM as a problem. The fame (some would say the notoriety) of the adage cogito, ergo sum makes one expect that scholarly industry has long since exhausted whatever interest it may have historically or topically. A perusal of the relevant literature, however, fails to satisfy this expectation. After hundreds of discussions of Descartes's famed principle we still do not seem to have any way of expressing his alleged insight in terms which would be general and precise enough to enable us to judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it.Thirty years ago Heinrich Scholz wrote that there not only remain many important questions concerning the Cartesian dictum unanswered but that there also remain important questions unasked.' Several illuminating papers later, the situation still seems essentially the same today. - End QUOTESo my semantical doubts about the Cogito are not unjustified. Digging into this theme is beyond the scope of our present project, but it really intrigues me. So, we have fundamental questions about Descartes Cogito, but let's assume it is a valid inference based on true propositions. In the next lecture we shall "judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it." to quote Hintikka.The Discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: I hope I wasn't to difficult today.....:)[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry Herman i was late..i have to read the blog[13:24] herman Bergson: Bu tif you have any remakrks or questions...the floor is yours now ㋡[13:25] oola Neruda: what criteria will you use to make that judgement or examination[13:25] herman Bergson: what judgement oola?[13:25] oola Neruda: about the Descartes assertion[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...most important is to keep in mind that Descartes postulates the existence of two different SUBSTANCES[13:26] Mick Nerido: Superman and Clark Kent are the same but not identical...[13:27] herman Bergson: so ontologically...there exist really two different things...that is the content of our univers[13:27] herman Bergson: the mental and the physical...[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a'[13:27] Doodus Moose: wonders how Descartes would view a room of avatars attending a philosophy lecture [13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is my thought astro[13:27] oola Neruda: what i meant was... some formula of logic... some philosophy that is felt to be truth... the tools for disceting it[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i always wonder that doodus about all of them[13:28] herman Bergson: one moment..[13:28] herman Bergson: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same...can you elaborate on that astro?[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Mick[13:29] Mick Nerido: Two things can be the same but not identical i.e. Superman/ Clark Kent[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i think so even if you where to create two identical objects they would still not be the same as they are both created from independant seperate atoms[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: for true dualism they would have to be made from the same atoms[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Astro..that is also one of the arguments against the identity principle....[13:31] herman Bergson: like two object may have all identical properties...except their location in space....[13:31] Astronomer Somerset: even a mirror image is not identical as it is the reverse[13:31] herman Bergson: However..I have a true SL argument against that![13:31] Bejiita Imako: aaa thats true[13:31] herman Bergson: When I make a prim....[13:32] herman Bergson: and I duplicate that prim at the very same location I have true identity...[13:32] herman Bergson: hmmmmm[13:32] Doodus Moose: except that they have different Keys[13:32] herman Bergson: maybe you would say...no...for when you seperate them they show to have different pixels[13:32] Bejiita Imako: interesting idea[13:32] herman Bergson: Cool Doodus....[13:33] herman Bergson: You win!!!!![13:33] Doodus Moose: it's how the system knows they are different :-)[13:33] herman Bergson: yes the key is different...absolutely![13:33] Astronomer Somerset: no you don't both objects are made from separate zero's and ones you have just two codes the same but they are still separate binary bits[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aa yes they are still 2 different objects even if perfect copies cause simply you have 2 separate ones with2 prim ids or so[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and not just 1[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yaaaaayyyyyyyy![13:33] Bejiita Imako: or dont know[13:34] Mick Nerido: Identicalness is based on more than appearences[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe that got my mind spin a bit[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hhee[13:34] herman Bergson: you even could claim that the two prims differ in memory addresses in my computer[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but one thing i use to say is that even of 2 things are identical they cant be the same cause there are still 2 of them[13:34] Astronomer Somerset: even two identical twins created from the same egg are not identical[13:34] Bejiita Imako: for it to be the same you can have only 1[13:35] herman Bergson: Well I think it now is clear enough that Descartes appeal to the principle of identity is not waterproof ^_^[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm is a bit tricky for sure[13:35] Doodus Moose: "identical" might be true in mathematics, where things on either side of the "equal" sign (could) be the same...[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): even with cells[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:36] druth Vlodovic: wouldn't the spiritual dimension be a property of matter, rather than a duplication of it?[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...that is a next station we will visit...[13:37] herman Bergson: property dualism.....[13:37] herman Bergson: A weaker form of dualism than substance dualism[13:37] druth Vlodovic: 'k[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:37] herman Bergson: The second issue that fascinates me here is the semantics of the "I" in the cogito[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: herman is the statement i think therfore i am truthfully a statement of self aware not existance[13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest ..it was in preperation of this lecture that I really seriously began to think about it...[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it always seemed so rational to me[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: a whale or an ant exist but they may not think the are products of chemical programming[13:40] herman Bergson: well...the title of the article of Hintikka is ... The Cogito: Inference or Performance[13:40] herman Bergson: I just found the article and handt the time to read it[13:40] herman Bergson: except the first few paragraphs :-)[13:41] herman Bergson: Well astro....I think that relates to theproblem of the semantics regarding the "I" in the statement...[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: i always took it to mean a referal of ID[13:42] herman Bergson: Descartes adds almost secretly something to existence....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: which is self aware[13:42] herman Bergson: that I....that awareness...[13:43] herman Bergson: I haven't thought this although yet....[13:43] Mick Nerido: I know I exist...[13:43] Astronomer Somerset: yes it's a statement of self I as in me myself or I[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the awareness was the starting point, onto which he added everything else[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes mick....but that statement PRESUPOSES the I[13:43] herman Bergson: that is what fascinates me here[13:44] Mick Nerido: If I was unconcious I would still exist.[13:44] Astronomer Somerset: we exist in sl but we are not a physical part of the programming we are a user and our avi's are just binary code so do we exist in sl[13:45] herman Bergson: We will get to such arguments in the next lecture Mick....[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm this is also an interesting thing[13:45] herman Bergson: smiles[13:45] Bejiita Imako: take plants for example[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but are they self aware[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they have no brain[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Astro...a fascinating move to focus on the existence of the avatar...:-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: seems just a bunch of individual cells with no consiousness but its still life[13:46] Mick Nerido: I think therefore i am aware of my existance...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: or a tree[13:46] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel[13:46] druth Vlodovic: we "exist" in SL to the extent to which we can affect it, if something existed which could have no effect on anything then it could not be said to exist[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: certain plants do have a basic neural pathway venus flytraps sense their pray by touch[13:47] herman Bergson: Very cryptic Druth....[13:47] Bejiita Imako: sl is a digital extension of ourselves[13:47] Mick Nerido: SL existence is 2 dimentional[13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on......![13:47] Astronomer Somerset: no sl is a medium that allows us to express our true selfs[13:48] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes sort of that[13:48] herman Bergson: the concept of self awareness implies that the agent can say..That is me[13:48] Doodus Moose: astro - if that is what you choose to express[13:48] herman Bergson: only few organisms are able to do that[13:49] herman Bergson: one is the human being...[13:49] herman Bergson: but some animals can show by their bhavior the same expression "That is me"[13:49] Doodus Moose: ahhh, the elephant in the mirror[13:49] herman Bergson: chimps, and elephants , yes[13:49] herman Bergson: dolphins too[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I have to go now[13:50] Bejiita Imako: o cu Gemma[13:50] Mick Nerido: What about Superman? lol[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:50] Doodus Moose: byee Gemma![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: bye gemma[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: byeee Gamma, TC[13:50] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma....[13:50] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...[13:51] herman Bergson: Gemma is right...[13:51] Adriana Jinn: thanks you professor[13:51] herman Bergson: it is about time to come to a conclusion...[13:51] Doodus Moose: i'm sure humans are the only beings yet to demonstrate a value of virtual items :-)[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok one last remark or question...:-)[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: at the very core of this question is a more fundamental question that needs to be understood befor we can truly answer these questions[13:52] druth Vlodovic: cats watching a hockey game do it :)[13:52] herman Bergson: which is Astro?[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: and that is what is thought[13:53] herman Bergson: or more precise perhaps...what is The Mind, Astro?[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: yes[[13:53] herman Bergson: Good conclusion...thnx![13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for the wonderful discussion....[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hmm this was very interesting[13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure[13:54] herman Bergson: Your question will be our main focus for what is to come Astro[13:54] Bejiita Imako: got me something to think about[13:54] Adriana Jinn: very interesting yes[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Adriana Jinn: have to read it quietly after hihihih[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Qwark Allen: awsome hermann[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] herman Bergson: Thx QWark..[13:55] Qwark Allen: i`ll read the begining in the blog[13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo![13:55] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!![13:55] Qwark Allen: ☆*¨¨*<♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''*<♥:*¨¨*☆[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \o/[13:55] Qwark Allen: |[13:55] Qwark Allen: / \[13:55] Qwark Allen: ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!![13:55] herman Bergson: All will be posted in the blog asap....Adriana[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....feeling......transparent.......[13:55] Qwark Allen: ok nice[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....getting .....cloudy.....[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney...[13:55] herman Bergson: RIght in time as usual ^_^[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:56] Rodney Handrick: that time zone thing[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..i have to read the lecture from the beginning[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!! ty class :-) see u nex week![13:57] herman Bergson: next week?[13:57] herman Bergson: ^_^ ?[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: danke auch von mir, next time is tuesday?[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye:-)[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy..Tuesday same time same place[13:57] netty Keng: servus[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all..see you next tuesday[14:00] druth Vlodovic: thanks for the lecture herman, it was interesting[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[14:01] druth Vlodovic: I'm afraid I'm off seeking food[14:01] druth Vlodovic: have fun all[14:01] herman Bergson: you are welcome Astro[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thats ok will you be back later[14:02] herman Bergson: anytime
To be called a materialist with respect to your metaphysical interpretation of reality has been like a curse for many centuries.Of course this finds its roots in the fact that materialism was regarded almost synonymous with atheism. You see the same happen with regard to the concept of matter itself.I am not sure, whether there is a relation with that other meaning of the word "materialist", meaning "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.", according to the online Oxford Dictionary.It looks like there is a connection in the fact that theistic or spiritual values are not much supported by materialism.But as I said in the previous lecture, materialism has made considerable progress over the past century, particularly among educated European peoples.There seem to be a few reasons for this development. One reason is, that there has been a decline in those aspects of religious conviction that involve appeal to providential or satanic interventions in the course of events.This is due to the fact that many have lost the belief in an intervening god or devil in this world. Earthquakes, climate change or pestilence, for example, are not attributed to nonmaterial, supernatural forces.Another reason we already have discussed extensively, which you could call "biological materialism": the discovery of the biochemical mechanisms involved in neural functioning, and their links to psychological processes, so that it is now taken for granted that thinking, feeling, and the will are subserved by the nervous system, and can be altered by making physical changes by the use of drugs or electrodes.Again another reason, which you could call "medical materialism": diseases are not caused by a punishing god, witchcraft, curses and the like, but by viruses and bacteria.We have developed a strong belief in the possibilities of medicine. Every illness can be cured and if this is not yet the case, we believe that medical research eventually will find a material cure.Sometimes I get the feeling, that this medical materialism has replaced the religious beliefs. We get strongly imprinted that our health is the ultimate good on earth, almost meaning "When you are healthy, you are happy!"And this is all based on a materialist and mechanistic concept of health. When the body(machine) is properly maintained all will be well. Thus jogging has become the contemporary way of praying ( ^_*)A final reason can be that recent years have witnessed an astonishing expansion in the range and sophistication of the mental tasks that digital machines can perform. Not only remembering, recalling, and calculating, but pattern recognition, estimation processes, problem solving, and learning new skills, skills, which hitherto have been the exclusive preserve of living, conscious beings, are now routinely performed by electronic devices that, unless panpsychism is true, are purely physical structures.This has lead to an increasingly common assumption that mental activity is a special kind of physical process, which even suggests the question "Will a computer eventually become conscious?"Of course materialism is not THE ontological answer, but it offers a comprehensive, unified account of the nature of reality that is economical, intelligible, and consistent with the most successful of the sciences.The Discussion[13:16] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:17] herman Bergson: Allow a 2 minutes break so that Soussine and Carmela can read the notecard/text of this lecture before we start our discussion...[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:17] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:17] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you =)[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: TY[13:17] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:17] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm good[13:18] herman Bergson: ok..[13:18] herman Bergson smiles[13:18] Sousinne Ceriano: done[13:18] herman Bergson: The floor is yours then....[13:18] Bejiita Imako: Even if a computer gets more and more advanced i don't think it can ever be conscious[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: / what's to prevent a conscious computeR?[13:19] Bejiita Imako: cause all a computer does do by calculating binary numbers[13:19] Carmela Sandalwood: and all we do is by chemical reactions...so?[13:19] Doodus Moose: yes - we'd need a whole different architecture[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: If it can't, Bejiita, how can we be conscious?[13:19] Bejiita Imako: thus see only 1 and 0 surent and no current[13:19] herman Bergson: We will get to that subject Bejiita when we discuss the chinese Room argument of John Searle..[13:19] herman Bergson: He is at your side[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): computer can all do what humans can do[13:20] Mick Nerido: The study of the material world is becoming more metaphycial like with Dark matter and dark energy[13:20] Doodus Moose: Chinese Room - consider also the Turing Test[13:20] druth Vlodovic: if pure materialism is true then we aren't really conscious[13:20] Carmela Sandalwood: why not? consciousness is simply an awareness of surroundings[13:20] Sousinne Ceriano: druth: That won't be true until you can say we understand the nature of consciousness.[13:20] Bejiita Imako: t when this happens millions of times per second that the computer can create everything almost but yet its just binary math at very high speed done by billions of switches[13:20] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can chinese room only, they haven't a consciousness[13:21] Carmela Sandalwood: well, humans do it with millions of neural connections...so?[13:21] herman Bergson: Let me give you John Searle's arguments about consciousness again[13:21] Doodus Moose: neural connections self -program[13:21] Mick Nerido: If materialism is true than atoms could be conscious[13:21] herman Bergson: I think it is the best answer to the mind body problem so far...[13:22] herman Bergson: No no Mick...not that fast[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ut ht is some kind of chemical process and we have receptors for that, but for a computer that would mean that you had to do complete new way of constructing them i think[13:22] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced the Chinese room doesn't understand Chinese[13:22] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): john searle is irrelevant[13:22] Mick Nerido: well have the potential for it built in[13:22] herman Bergson: Ok....plz..listen.....[13:22] Bejiita Imako: so that it can indeed feel something[13:22] herman Bergson: Plz...a moment of silence...![13:22] Bejiita Imako: and also computers need to do it by math while we interpret it directly[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sound pictures ect[13:23] herman Bergson: How to understand the relation between consciousness and matter....[13:23] herman Bergson: Take a glass of water....[13:23] herman Bergson: the water is liquid….[13:23] herman Bergson: Liquidity is a property of that water....[13:24] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans cant understand substainable[13:24] herman Bergson: but we can not seperate the liquidity as something on its own from the water[13:24] herman Bergson: it means...[13:24] Carmela Sandalwood: liquidity is a type of interaction of the molecules in the water[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: "sustainable" means "unchanging". What a magnificent world where stasis is seen as the highest goal for all humanity.[13:25] herman Bergson: the h2o molecules create that state by being in a certain state...[13:25] herman Bergson: so..liquidity is caused by these h2o molecules....[13:25] Bejiita Imako: yes by moving around and binding in between those for ice and steam[13:25] Carmela Sandalwood: its the interaction, not the molecules themselves[13:25] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): incorrect sous[13:26] Sousinne Ceriano: Right, Kraftwerk.[13:26] herman Bergson: but we can not pick out a h2o molecule and say..look this is a liquid one...[13:26] Bejiita Imako: slow movement = ice fast movement steam[13:26] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans are so annoying[13:26] Bejiita Imako: and alson the molecule mmovement is same as heat[13:26] Carmela Sandalwood: not quite Bejiita[13:26] herman Bergson: thus the brain operates too....[13:26] Mick Nerido: water = liquid as brain = consciousness?[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I completely agree with you there, Kraftwerk. =)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: meaning for ex that microwave energy is converted directly into heat when interacting with water in the food[13:27] herman Bergson: the material processes in the brain cause consciousness[13:27] Bejiita Imako: its not friction cause the actual molecule vibrations are the heat[13:27] herman Bergson: save us the details Bejiita :-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:27] Bejiita Imako: thats how it is[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: I read a brilliant book some time ago... "I am a strange loop" by Douglas Hofstadter.[13:27] herman Bergson: So the brain causes consciousness...[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: But the question is *how* the brain causes consciousness[13:28] herman Bergson: Like h20 molecules cause liquidity[13:28] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is an esoteric concept of our anthropozentric religion[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: His view was that consciousness is a product of self-reference.[13:28] herman Bergson: the how question is just a scientific question...[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it bothers me to say the H2O molecules 'cause' liquidity...[13:28] herman Bergson: we have our neurobiology and physics and thus can find out[13:28] Carmela Sandalwood: it's a strange use of the word 'cause'[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: I am inclined to agree with him. The way to make a "stale" system of thought is to banish self-reference.[13:29] herman Bergson: Ahhh Carmela…[13:29] herman Bergson: That is really a good point.....[13:29] druth Vlodovic: sci-fi authors pard the term down to "self-aware" machines a long time ago[13:29] Bejiita Imako: the speed of movement causes the liquidity, the value of it[13:29] Mick Nerido: consciousness is purely a material process not spiritual[13:29] herman Bergson: Since Hume we have a peculiar idea of causality...[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: Once you accept it, the system grows in ways we don't have good words to explain.[13:29] herman Bergson: billiard ball causality I call it[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: the speed and the degree of interaction is what is associated with the macro-scopic state of liquidity[13:30] herman Bergson: you have event/object A that causes event/object B[13:30] Carmela Sandalwood: Hume was better than Aristotle on causality[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: But from the earliest moments, every human is faced with an environment containing a very special object: themselves.[13:30] herman Bergson: Two seperate events...[13:30] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans act like billiard, but they dont can realised it by itself[13:30] herman Bergson: but that is a very narrow idea of causality....[13:31] Carmela Sandalwood: right…liquidity and the molecules are not separate things[13:31] herman Bergson: on the one hand you have H2O molecules...[13:31] herman Bergson: on the other hand you have liquidity...[13:32] herman Bergson: That is aristotelian thinking...but nonsense if you regard liquidity ontologically as a separate entity or property[13:32] herman Bergson: Liquidity exists ONLY if H2O molecules are in a certain condition[13:32] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, what defines liquidity? Preservation of volume, ability to flow, etc[13:32] herman Bergson: The mind exists only...when there is a brain[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: A number of different chemicals can have liquid states...at various temperatures and pressures[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...only variations on the theme[13:33] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:33] Carmela Sandalwood: So the question is whether a silicon structure can 'cause' a mind also[13:33] herman Bergson: But there is one philosophically important issue here[13:34] druth Vlodovic: I think the point is that "consciousness" is an effect, not a thing in it's own right[13:34] herman Bergson: saying that the brain causes the mind...[13:34] herman Bergson: or consciousness...[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: If the silicon can do the same things, it will be just as conscious.[13:34] herman Bergson: doesnt tell us a thing about WHAT consciousness is...[13:34] Carmela Sandalwood: Right, but if we could get another example of the phenomenon, we would have an easier time defining it :)[13:35] herman Bergson: Sillicon can't do the job Sousinne...[13:35] druth Vlodovic: maybe a better question is if computers can eventually make their own choices[13:35] druth Vlodovic: though many people don't think that people can,[13:35] Carmela Sandalwood: why not herman?[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?[13:35] herman Bergson: Searle pointed that out pretty clearly in his Chinese room Argument....google for it :-)[13:35] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): silicon can do it far better[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: And I disagree with Searle on that[13:36] Doodus Moose: Sous - assuming consciousness is synapse-based, silicon junctions can't do the sam ething[13:36] herman Bergson: Computers are symbol shuffling machines...[13:36] herman Bergson: our mind isnt....[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: How come?[13:36] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): chinese room is antropzentric nonsense[13:36] herman Bergson: Our mind adds semantics to the symbols...[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goodevening[13:36] Carmela Sandalwood: Well, one difficulty is that we are thinking of computers as non-interactive....look more at the advances of robots lately...much closer to what is required[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: Whatever consciousness is, it is a product of shuffled information.[13:36] druth Vlodovic: what the heck is an anthropzen?[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes made of silicon but its not the silicon itself, its the dopant substrate that conduct current and performs binary math[13:37] herman Bergson: I think you have to come up with a better counter argument Kleine[13:37] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): google it with the right spelling ^^[13:37] Bejiita Imako: just raw number crunching nothing conscious there[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: how do you know Bejiita?[13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: And for us: just raw chemical shuffling, nothing conscious there?[13:37] Carmela Sandalwood: efine what it means to be conscious first...then we can see if computers qualify[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I know the basics behind cpus and know how they are made and works[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: so do I...and I also know the basics for neurons[13:38] herman Bergson: I don't agree Sousinne....[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Who said anything about a computer?[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: I said a silicon structure.[13:38] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans do only crude statistic operation in his little neuronal network.[13:38] herman Bergson: Our chemical shufflling in the brain causes consciousness[13:38] Carmela Sandalwood: we are carbon based structures with some water, and a few other chemicals[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, professor, BECAUSE information gets spread in certain patterns.[13:39] Carmela Sandalwood: and why can't that chemical shuffling be mimicked by computers?[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Carmela....and with some remarkable features[13:39] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): its not a question by the materials at first, they don't understand it[13:39] herman Bergson: consciousness is one of the features our our material construction :-)[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: just like other chemicals can be liquid, why can't other structures support consciousness?[13:40] Doodus Moose: bingo[13:40] Bejiita Imako: something cause conscious ness yes and its electrical signals so in someway might be possible but i have a hart time to see how todays construction of a computer can be because the e way they work[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Unless you mean to say that there are certain chemicals that cause consciousness, you are going to have to deal with the idea that all our brains do is shuffle information[13:40] Bejiita Imako: just switching current on and off like a light switch[13:40] Mick Nerido: Why is there consciousness at all?[13:40] herman Bergson: Good question Carmela...but a scientific one...[13:40] herman Bergson: not a philosophical one...[13:40] Carmela Sandalwood: agreed....but as a philosophical question, is there a barrier?[13:40] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): consciousness is a other believe system like human god believe sytsem[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: No... it is not about belief.[13:41] herman Bergson: Why is there consciousness at all.....? Not a meaningful question in my opinion[13:41] druth Vlodovic: the chinese room argument seems to be saying that computers can't be conscious because their hardware can't have understanding[13:41] herman Bergson: Then you also can ask...Whey are there trees at all?[13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: Consciousness is a subjective experience, not any sort of system of thought[13:41] druth Vlodovic: but isn't understanding a software problem?[13:41] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness exists because information processing makes it more likely that living things will reproduce[13:42] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): our consciousness is dead like our god. think monkeys![13:42] herman Bergson: no druth...it is a matter of semantics...[13:42] herman Bergson: computers aren't able to add meaning to the symbols they shuffle..[13:42] herman Bergson: our mind does that[13:42] Doodus Moose: nor respond to them emotionally[13:42] Carmela Sandalwood: that i am not so convinced about...what is meaning in this context?[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: emotionally is just another form of information processing[13:43] Bejiita Imako: no they arent a computer can not understand what it does[13:43] herman Bergson: That is why translation programs are so clumsy...like google translate for instance[13:43] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans don't know the meaning of its own acting. thats why the will die out next time[13:43] Carmela Sandalwood: ever talked to a three year old? all sorts of grammatical mistakes[13:43] Bejiita Imako: what the program i wrote really does it cant see that it is a game second life or whatever[13:44] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): if you dont like our programs don't use them ;-P[13:44] Bejiita Imako: it just switches its current on and off in different binary patterns[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: but own language you do no longer understand carmela ;)[13:44] druth Vlodovic: but computer programs are asked to act upon the symbols, when they are given instructions, so the meaning of an abstract symbol becomes, say, movement[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: If it had consciousness, maybe it would, Bejiita.[13:44] Carmela Sandalwood: none of my neurons understands english...but the whole structure of my brain does[13:45] Mick Nerido: At what point is life conscious?[13:45] herman Bergson: the action on symbols is applying rules Druth[13:45] Sousinne Ceriano: Maybe meaning, emotions, all those things we see as being human, maybe they all require consciousness?[13:45] Bejiita Imako: maybe but that would require a completely different way of constructing a cpu than just millions of on and off switches[13:45] druth Vlodovic: to humans meaning is a matter of "what do I do with this?" or "How does this mesh with previously accumulated meanings?"[13:45] Carmela Sandalwood: Bejiita: I think that main difference is we need more interaction of the silicon structures with the 'real world'[13:45] herman Bergson: Of course Sousinne...![13:45] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans aren't a real life form[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes something like that[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and also as said computers need to take the way over mathematics while we can interpret directly[13:46] Carmela Sandalwood: consciousness comes from interaction with an environment, using the information collected by the senses[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: And thus, you need to solve the issue of consciousness BEFORE you tap into emotions and meaning... it also means neither is necessary for consciousness.[13:46] Doodus Moose: so, my hamster is conscious?[13:46] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): :)[13:47] herman Bergson: To some extend yes Doodus[13:47] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): hamsters and humans haven't a consciousness[13:47] Carmela Sandalwood: where do we put the line for consciousness? bacteria? lizards?[13:47] herman Bergson: It will be conscious of pain when you torture it[13:47] Doodus Moose: +when+[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: not if[13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: =)[13:47] herman Bergson: It will not have the ability to say to you "I am in pain"[13:47] druth Vlodovic: my car is "conscious" of a low oil condition[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: and bacteria move away from noxious stimuli[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: No... your car is nothing of the sort.[13:48] Carmela Sandalwood: with micro-computers in cars, it might be[13:48] druth Vlodovic: it can react to it, by lighting a warning light[13:48] herman Bergson: Your car is a 100% causally operation mechanism Druth[13:48] Doodus Moose: ...but that's not consciousness[13:48] Bejiita Imako: if not the oil level just trigs a switch connected to a computer programmed to send current to 2 leads leading to a warning light, those 2 lights could be connected to whatever[13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: Whether machines will be capable of being conscious or not, they are not currently able to be conscious.[13:49] Carmela Sandalwood: and I do tend to agree the car is not conscious...but the term is ambiguous[13:49] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Souisinne - how would we know?[13:49] herman Bergson: Welll Doodus..that is the whole point regarding animal rights...[13:49] druth Vlodovic: if I burn my hand I'll retract it, in fact, it would take conscious interference to avoid doing so[13:49] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that animals were just plain machines...no mind at all[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: Lolli: Enough analysis and we will know EVERY signal there is in the car's electrical system.[13:50] herman Bergson: We now know that animals can experience stress and fear....[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: It is eminently predictable and not one bit of it will generate any sort of consciousness.[13:50] herman Bergson: Even have emotions![13:50] Carmela Sandalwood: experience....[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: A nut is not conscious because I throw a rock at it to make it fall down from a branch[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: ok, how do we know they experience anxiety? or emotions?[13:51] herman Bergson: Soem animales even have a self conscious...recognize themselves in a mirror[13:51] Bejiita Imako: an interesting thing is plants[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: Measurements of stress hormones[13:51] Bejiita Imako: are they conscious[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No.[13:51] Carmela Sandalwood: so if a computer shows the signs of emotions and stress, is it conscious?[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: They don't even have any sort of nervous system.[13:51] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but can they think or have a mind[13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No[13:51] herman Bergson: no Bejiita...stop that ...:-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: no because unlike us they are just a bunch of independent cells with no brain[13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: If a computer shows signs of stress, get a new one before it breaks down. =)[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: not independent...plants are 8very* interconnected[13:52] herman Bergson: Plants can interact with their environment..yes...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: in some way it seems indeed[13:52] herman Bergson: respond to a nice rain or suffer under a hot sun...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cause as said[13:52] Bejiita Imako: they are alive[13:52] Carmela Sandalwood: how about a robot that has been programmed to work in an environment? if it shows stress, is it conscious?[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a whole different matter...[13:53] Mick Nerido: Any complex enough brain can be conscious because the atoms and molecules have the potential to behave that way[13:53] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): humans can't interact with there environment[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: A robot would need to be self-referential for that to happen.[13:53] Sousinne Ceriano: It would need to relate to ITSELF.[13:53] Carmela Sandalwood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes mick..therefore some animales can be attributed consciousness....even self awareness[13:54] Carmela Sandalwood: Big Dog: conscious or not?[13:54] druth Vlodovic: I wonder if the term "conscious" isn't obfuscating[13:54] Sousinne Ceriano: Showing a mimicked symptom of stress doesn't help[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok Druth....I know.....:-)[13:54] herman Bergson: We'll deal with is in coming lectures in detail ^_^[13:54] Bejiita Imako: the stress in the robot is stull just programmed math[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and is *our* stress just un-programmed math?[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: Until such a time as the robot can consider its own situation.[13:55] herman Bergson: No Carmela...a robot never shows stress...[13:55] Carmela Sandalwood: and they do now....they work with information to adjust their behavior[13:55] Mick Nerido: A robot could be made of carbon and be organic like people[13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: And not just seeing its environment[13:55] Bejiita Imako: we feel directly without calculating numbers, a machine cant do that at least not yet[13:55] herman Bergson: its program shuffles symbols according to given rules...[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: herman: I disgaree.....look at the video of Big Dog being pushed over....[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: or being on an icy road[13:56] Sousinne Ceriano: We feel because billions of neurons toggle chemicals on or off.[13:56] herman Bergson: so it may simulate behavior we would call stres sbehavior[13:56] Carmela Sandalwood: is that Descartes argument against animals?[13:56] herman Bergson: It is programmed to respond like that[13:56] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): nobody need the humans species on that planet[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:57] herman Bergson: We could discuss the need of your presence here Mr. Kleine..:-)))[13:57] druth Vlodovic: so you can be considered "conscious" if you can do things you are not programmed for?[13:57] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): smiles at herman :))[13:57] Carmela Sandalwood: modern robots respond 'creatively' to new situations[13:57] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES i know human fascism well[13:58] Bejiita Imako: yes and can interact with directly and not just go through numbers[13:58] herman Bergson: ok ok..hold on...[13:58] Bejiita Imako: we hear sound see pictures and so a machine se just 1001001101010101010101[13:58] Carmela Sandalwood: I'm not convinced our neurons don't just 'go through the numbers'[13:58] herman Bergson: Is my computer conscious ...willl be one of the subjects of coming lectures[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: the question is how they get the numbers they go through Carmela[13:59] Carmela Sandalwood: through their sensory inputs...just like us[13:59] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): you will only not see the conscious of a computer or other species cause its different to human conscious[13:59] herman Bergson: We cant deal with all such complex questions and observations with just a few general remarks or arguments[13:59] herman Bergson: so..patience plz....[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: the sensoric will have to be programmed too Carmela[14:00] herman Bergson: Today I only gave you some reasons why materialism has become a widely accepted ontology[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: and ours is pre-programmed by genetics[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: but we program the computers carmela[14:00] Doodus Moose: i'm always suspicious of things that make too much sense[14:00] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): ciska computer programs tier sensorik by learning it self today[14:00] Carmela Sandalwood: so we need genetic robots?[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: after patterns we gave them kraftwerk[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: we predefine[14:01] herman Bergson: Well...Thank you all for this very good discussion....[14:01] Carmela Sandalwood: thank you herman[14:01] herman Bergson: feel free to continue...[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[14:01] herman Bergson: but ...[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you all[14:01] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: great class :)[14:01] Bejiita Imako: VERY[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: :9[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:01] herman Bergson: Hey CONNIE[14:01] Mick Nerido: Nice class[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: hi :)[14:02] herman Bergson: didnt see you come in!!!![14:02] CONNIE Eichel: :)[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman- bye all[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ok cu ㋡[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: i stayed in silence :)[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: thanks[14:02] Soniah Beaumont: :)[14:02] Carmela Sandalwood: what happens if we replace every neuron in our system by a silicon module that does the same thing?[14:02] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): human philosophy sound like moo moo[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:03] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Thank you herman.[14:03] Doodus Moose: Carmela - two _totally_ different architectures[14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: <--definitely a materialist[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: well, till next class, jazz time fo me :)[14:03] herman Bergson: Then you should not attend this class Mr.Kleine[14:03] Sousinne Ceriano: Carmela: Yay![14:03] Carmela Sandalwood: so? why is that relevant doodus?[14:03] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): YES humans never learned by other species.[14:04] Doodus Moose: neurons can "learn" by connecting in various patterns. silicon is 'fused' into non-changeable patterns[14:04] herman Bergson: Envy you CONNIE![14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: if the reactions are the same, will the new construct be conscious?[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: :)[14:04] Carmela Sandalwood: it is possible to modify things so that the strength of the connection changes over time...[14:04] Sousinne Ceriano: Doodus: She said that it would work the SAME way.[14:04] Bejiita Imako: aFPGA circuit can be programmed to change its internal structure but still olny programming[14:04] CONNIE Eichel: kisses you all :)[14:04] Doodus Moose: ..but by architecture , it can't (yet)[14:04] herman Bergson: Yeah!!![14:04] herman Bergson: :-)[14:05] Doodus Moose: :-)[14:05] Kleine Tittenmausprinzessin (kraftwerk.maximus): even rats will survies the homo sapiens. rats adaped to radioactivity and global warming[14:05] Bejiita Imako: ok need to head on[14:05] Carmela Sandalwood: TC Bejiita[14:05] druth Vlodovic: we need to start cross-breeding with rats immediately[14:05] herman Bergson: That is a triviality Mr. Kleine[14:05] Sousinne Ceriano: One good thought experiment: If you could teleport somewhere, by making a copy and destroying the original, would you want to go?[14:05] Bejiita Imako: time to scare the neighbours unconcious with a little Qwark Psy[14:05] Bejiita Imako: lol[14:06] Doodus Moose: llIInduceLobotomy(key, status);[14:06] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again ㋡
