365: The Mind is a computer

Many people who work in the cognitive science and in the philosophy of mind think that the most exciting idea of the past generation, indeed of the past two thousand years, is that the mind is a computer program.

Specifically, the idea is that the mind is to the brain as a computer program is to the computer hardware. John Searle has baptized this view as "Strong Artificial Intelligence".

John Searle, born in 1932 and still alive and active, is noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy and teached at Berkeley in 1959.

In the previous lecture we learnt that a computer is a symbol manipulating machine and in the real computers of today, the machine uses only the symbols "1" and "0".

When a computer has to solve a problem, it uses an algorithm. An algorithm is a systematic procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.

This all is controlled by a set of rules. For example you can have the rule "If condition C , then do A", which could be in real "If complex symbol "1111" occurs, replace it by "0000".

Now suppose we put a computer with a specific program on subject X in an room and an expert on the subject X in another room.

Then we let experts outside the room type in questions on a console. Both, the computer and the man in the room, can answer the questions.

This test, named the Turing Test, claims, that if the experts, who ask the questions, cannot distinguish the behavior of the computer from that of a human, then the computer has the same cognitive abilities as a human.

It would mean that the computer is as good as the human expert on subject X. Or in other words, the computer does the same as the mind of the human expert, understanding the questions and answering them correctly.

This is odd. A computer is a symbol manipulation device according to a given set of rules. Whatever the symbols means, doesn't matter. If you use the proper algorithm you get the solution of any problem.

Is that how our mind works? Is it indeed like a computer program a symbol manipulating system? This question has raised a battle in the philosophy of mind due to the famous Chinese Room argument as formulated by John Searle.

It is like this: you sit in a room with a bunch of boxes in which you find cards with Chinese characters on them. You have no understanding of Chinese at all.

But you have a book with rules, telling you things like "when you receive symbol X and Y, then return as an answer symbol P from box 2"

Outside the room there are chinese speaking people who send you their questions. You use your book of rules and return the appropriate symbols, which show to be the correct answers.

It means, that you passed in principle the famous Turing test, but you would not thereby understand a single word of Chinese.

If you don't understand Chinese by using a book of rules and manipulating symbols, neither does any digital computer using its algorithm.

However, when asked a question in English, you do not get a set of complex symbols, nor do you look up a number of rules to manipulate them.

When I ask you whether the earth is flat or a sphere, you can give an answer, because the words 'earth', "flat' and "sphere' have a meaning. And your answer is based on empirical facts.

And that is what a computer never can achieve, adding meaning to the symbols it manipulates and in some respects that is one of its powers, to be absolutely mindless.


The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you ㋡
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: as alway
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: s
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Farv Hallison: Thank you, herman.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Conclusion....computers never can have a mind
[13:24] agnos: Thanks
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ed thats how it is, everyone who have written a computer program can see that
[13:24] Farv Hallison: But both stories sidestep the issue of defining what the mind is.
[13:24] herman Bergson: no Farv...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: simple things like playing music requires the computer to for each sequence of the song do a complex series of instructions every time and loop millions of times per second the same instruction over and over
[13:25] herman Bergson: A mind does more than a computer does...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: it can never learn it by itself
[13:25] Elle (ellenilli.lavendel) is Offline
[13:25] herman Bergson: a computer only shuffles symbols around according a bunch of rules
[13:25] herman Bergson: a mind ads meaning to symbol....a mind has content
[13:25] agnos: But we seemed to have developed into having a mind
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: its like if we would never learn the notes but always have a paper to look at
[13:25] Farv Hallison: The rule might generate new computer programs.
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol is Online
[13:26] Farv Hallison: a dictionary can add meaning to words.
[13:26] herman Bergson: maybe..but they do the same as all computer programs…shuffle symbols around without any understanding
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: yes indeed
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes..that is what we did with our mind
[13:27] herman Bergson: Just look how crude the translators work....even the best....
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a computer cpu is just a bunch of millions of small sort of light switches that opens and closes in a specific way to the program code
[13:27] Farv Hallison: well, a computer could have a dictionary of meanings and even make new entries
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: because the cpu is designed in hardware so that a specific sequence of 1 and 0 will cause those switches to flip
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: its nothing more than that
[13:28] herman Bergson:a computer can have a database, Farv..but We have to fill it
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: may I play advocata diaboli?
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the compiler that translate the c or basic code must have knowledge about the basic construction of the cpu
[13:28] herman Bergson: sure Sybyle
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: thats how you program in assembler
[13:29] CONNIE Eichel: ^^
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the problem of the computer is, that the rules are only on a single dimension
[13:29] herman Bergson: hold on Bejiita....plz ㋡
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: then you must know registers address locations and everything about the basic hardware to communicate with the machine
[13:29] netty Keng is Offline
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: the human pc has many layers of rules
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: smelling, looking, feeling and so on
[13:29] Farv Hallison: I like the smelling
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum is Online
[13:29] herman Bergson: Oh yes....I even left that feature our on purpose...
[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: our brain influences sympaticus and parasympaticus, it influences if you feel well or not, how can a computer feel well?, can he feel anger fear or love?
[13:30] Farv Hallison: The computer could have a chemical lab that acts like a nose.
[13:30] herman Bergson: No Farv....
[13:30] herman Bergson: unfortunately not...
[13:31] herman Bergson: the chemical lab produces only data as in put which are just symbols for the computer
[13:31] herman Bergson: then it has its algorithm to analyze the data
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Netty Crystal is Online
[13:31] herman Bergson: you find such computers to analyze gasses for instance in many laboratories
[13:32] herman Bergson: But the machine has no understanding at all of the meaning of its output
[13:32] herman Bergson: It is our mind that adds the semantics to the charts and numbers
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and basically a computer have only a specific set of fixed instructions it can understand, the compiler in for example c must translate the c code to these basic commands and thats all the commands the cpu will ever understand untill a new model arrives with more instruction sets
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but we don't know either, why an how we react on chemical signs
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: tats why a computer can never at least not as they work now feel or sense
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: we just started to analyze it
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well the idea of a sensory computer with understanding of its sense experiences is a Science Fiction idea
[13:34] herman Bergson: Take Data form Startrek for instance...
[13:35] herman Bergson: The funny thing with him was that he could play Bach on a cello, but couldn't put feeling in it
[13:35] Farv Hallison: good point. I can't put feeling into it either.
[13:36] herman Bergson: So the scenario writers stayed close to the symbol shuffling of a computer
[13:36] herman Bergson: Data had a brother Farv.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Looks curiously at Farv
[13:36] Farv Hallison: oh?
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: star trek data?
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes he had a brother
[13:36] herman Bergson: But that brother was the bad guy is one of the episodes
[13:36] Janette Shim is Offline
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: who was kind of evil programmed i think
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Could the brother play with feeling?
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:37] herman Bergson: that is a good question Farv....for that brother really wanted evil....
[13:37] Farv Hallison: Can you be evil without having evil feelings?
[13:37] herman Bergson: which is an emotional choice
[13:38] herman Bergson: It is always fun to see how in SF they have to struggle with a computer with a mind...
[13:38] herman Bergson: especially when the thing gets its own feelings and ideas
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: and thats also a thing, can you make a computer program so that it for some unforeseen reason turn against you like in terminator
[13:39] herman Bergson: That is way beyond what a computer really is and will be in the future
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i don't think so cause then you must have deliberateley programmed it to kill you and who does that?
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: a computer only does what you tell it to
[13:40] Farv Hallison: well, the computer might control the power grid and give itself more power when it feel is it circuits slowing down.
[13:40] Joann Innovia (kimkiddy) is Offline
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: even if you can make a computer program take in data from outside and "learn" i dont' think that a machine that is made for good suddenly by external input could go berserk
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and kill you
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Farv...that is what it in SF movies always does....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but it only can do so when programmed that way....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:41] herman Bergson: Greatest fun is always when they in a movie never get the idea to simply pull the plug
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes, thats rule nr one
[13:42] herman Bergson: weird thing is then when you approach the plug and outlet the computer attacks you :-)
[13:42] Farv Hallison: 2001 pulled the plug.
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ALL machines no matter what it is should have an emergency stop or a mean to cut the power as soon it loose control
[13:42] herman Bergson: True Farv..indeed......he removes all those red objects one by one..
[13:43] Farv Hallison: but the computer might be running our life control system, so we can't shut it down.
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: but well i may bee hard to get to the plug of the opier machine if it chases you around the office meanwhile
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: copying
[13:43] herman Bergson: lol Good one FArv...
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): aardlekschakelaar:)
[13:43] herman Bergson: When we pull the plug here SL ceases to exist and we all are gone....:-((
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: yes :/
[13:44] herman Bergson: So, we are defenseless against our computers!!!!!
[13:44] Farv Hallison: yes, the police might pull the plug if we start to demonstrate.
[13:44] herman Bergson: We are all trapped inhere!!!!!
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:44] Farv Hallison: We are trapped in the Matrix/
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yeah..Let's OCCUPY SL !!!!!
[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: well we still exist as code but the code need an active cpu to run so you can say we are like viruses in sl, a virus ( biological) needs a living host, its just a bunch of dna as our avatars just is code that need a powered on cpu and memory to operate on
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...thank you all for your participation again...
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: thanks to YOU herman
[13:45] Farv Hallison: this has been great fun.
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:45] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Lizzy Pleides donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: a painful observation that we are trappe din here and cant pull the plug unless we want to kill ourselves...
[[13:46] Farv Hallison: ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: I hope you all can live with that ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: but behind the avatar is still a real person who control it
[13:46] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: my avatar doesn't do anything my rl self don't tell it to
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: its operator
[13:46] herman Bergson: That real person might survive then Bejiita...
[
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: its an interesting thought for sure
[13:47] herman Bergson: Thank you all and dont be afraid of thinking computers..they dont exist
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: just machines
[13:47] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:47] Farv Hallison: I wont do anything my tail wouldn't do.
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and machines only do what you tell them, unless some dangerous bug is in the code
[13:48] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Goed Gedaan Jochie!!
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: and that bug is then telling the machine to do wring things
[13:48] Farv Hallison: All code has bugs
[13:48] Lizzy Pleides: clap clap clap...wohooooooo!
[13:48] CONNIE Eichel: great class, as always :)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo!
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yeah
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: liked it a slot
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:48] herman Bergson: thank you ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: lot
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Bejita
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: cu soon
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye, see you next class :)
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson whispers: Bye CONNIE
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Tc Connie
[13:49] Farv Hallison: bye Connie
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: ciao Connie
[13:49] CONNIE Eichel: bye :)

360: Introducing Functionalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Discussion

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

349: The Monist Mind

The belief that what really exists is mental may sound somewhat preposterous today, but yet this conviction has played an important role in philosophy, especially in German philosophy from Kant to Heidegger.

You find the problem in the cartesian doubt. You can doubt everything, even the reality of the world, but you can not doubt the existence of the mind.

So, the step to the conclusion that the mind eventually is the only entity of which you are absolutely sure that it is real, is close at hand.

Another philosophical line of thinking is: all we really have are sensory impressions. They may be caused by external things or may be hallucinations, at the end all we really have are sensory impressions in our mind.

Kant went a step further and concluded that there is something missing here. How can we recognize a sensory impression as being an object in space and time, for instance?

What we call reality, is in fact created. organized, by our mind.Thence what is really real, is mental. This quality positioned the human being above the material world.

When we think reflectively of mental phenomena we find that we acknowledge them to possess two sets of properties:

one set which invites us to distinguish the mental realm from the physical, the other which firmly locates the mental within the physical world.

Among the first set of properties are subjectivity, infallible first-person knowledge, consciousness, meaning, rationality, freedom and self-awareness.

These properties are not to be found in the world of mere matter, and so lead us to suppose the mind to be set apart from the physical body: we seem compelled to accord a special mode of reality to mental phenomena.

However, because of the development of science we accept a few basic truths today, for instance, that the brain, itself a physical organ of the body, is intimately related to mental activity, its integrity and functioning necessary to the integrity and functioning of the mind;

that mental phenomena seem to emerge, both in evolution and individual development, from a basis of matter organized in physically explicable ways.

These considerations incline us to regard the mind as somehow physical in nature, since it is natural to suppose that only what is itself physical could be so enmeshed in the physical world.

The brain and the mind seem to work in parallel: The brain is the physical understructure of the mind. That fact suggests a strategy for investigation.

We should be able to find out things about the brain by seeing how the mind works. We should be able to find out things about the mind by seeing how the brain works.

The clearest and most uncompromising version of monism is the thesis that mental phenomena are literally identical with physical phenomena:

if a person has a sensation or a thought and a neurophysiologist is examining the relevant portions of his brain, then the mental state is nothing other than the physical state thus observed.

Moreover, whenever a mental state of that type occurs in a creature's mind there is the same type of physical state in the brain, these being identical.

The model for such type identities is said to be provided by such theoretical identifications as that of water with H2O or heat with molecular motion:

just as we may be presented with one and the same phenomenon in two different ways and subsequently discover the identity, so-- it has been claimed--we may be presented in two different ways with a mental phenomenon, physically and mentally.

Don't think that this is the final story. Far from that, but it was my thesis in 1977 at my graduation from university: The Identity Theory ㋡


The Discussion

[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours, if you like.... ㋡
[13:28] herman Bergson: hears everybody think......
[13:28] Pirie Takacs: lol
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: timeout ..giggles
[13:28] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark...feel free...
[13:29] herman Bergson: Simply stated this identity theory says....
[13:29] herman Bergson: some words have different meanings, but the same referent...
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: its a new point of view... two different states of being.. connected.. but it remains a biochemical pc
[13:30] herman Bergson: this means ..'water' has another meaning than 'H2O'
[13:30] herman Bergson: but both terms refer to the same reality
[13:30] Pirie Takacs: I'm very much a novice, so please excuse me if this sounds naive... But how does this explain consciousness, which seems to me to be a leap above the mechanics of the brain?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Good question Pirie....
[13:31] herman Bergson: actually ...the BIG question....
[13:31] Mick Nerido: So in the brain when i see the color red the chemical process is the same for every brain.
[13:31] Clint Pheocene: it doesn't...i suspect that the question of consciousness will be answered not by philosophers or neuroscientists, but by physicists
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: well i guess everyone sees red as the same color unless colorblind
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: d
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Clint ...that may be a possible development....
[13:32] Clint Pheocene: everyone as in humans or everyone as in humans/dolphins/aliens?
[13:32] herman Bergson: But we have to face a problem here...
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but animals interpret it different as they see at least some speices different parts of the spectra
[13:33] Clint Pheocene: it is highly unlikely for an alien to see redness when it sees an apple
[13:33] herman Bergson: also when there would be a physical explanation of consciousness
[13:33] Mick Nerido: stimulate the same part of everyones brain to get same sensation
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....
[13:34] herman Bergson: When I think of the Eifeltower and you do the same...
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: if a physician explains consciousness, he will never get the point of it.. may be the mechanics
[13:34] herman Bergson: are there in our brains identical processes going on?
[13:34] Mick Nerido: That is my question
[13:35] herman Bergson: There is one problem here why they can not be identical...
[13:35] herman Bergson: I can say that this is MY experience , like you can say the same....
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: our computers are not yet perfect , will they have a conciousness in future?
[13:35] herman Bergson: subjectivity of experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: if there are similar processes.. it need not mean that the mind's processes are similar
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: to those of the brain
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I think
[13:36] herman Bergson: You cant say that Sybyle when you accept a monist view like the identity theory
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: please explain
[13:37] herman Bergson: ANd computers won't get consciousness, Lizzy, but we'll get to that an other time ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: talking about the mind and talking about the brain is a kind of speaking two different languages, but all words refer to that one and only material reality
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:39] herman Bergson: But believe me we aren't even halfway...
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the analogy with a computer i can get is that if the brain is the hardware the mind is sort of the operating system or software that runs on it
[13:39] Mick Nerido: The brain is the material the mind is the process of that brain
[13:39] herman Bergson: We still have to face a lot of arguments pro and contra
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: thats the closest analogy i can think of
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: but spicy pasta tastes same physically to all, but the mind has a different taste in every case
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so there must not be similarity
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: excuse my english.. I mean need
[13:40] herman Bergson: Taste is a difficult issue.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: especially because it is highly subjective.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: if subjectiveness is a property of my mental states.....who to deal with that property?
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: but isn't that the mind's work?
[13:42] herman Bergson: only your mind's work sybyle...
[13:42] Pirie Takacs nods.. I know what is spicy to my brain, after its accumulation of data, isn't the same as those of my Indian friend...*giggles, and fans her mouth, indicating 'spicy'=hot!
[13:42] Mick Nerido: The philosical question is why is matter mind at all?
[13:42] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:43] herman Bergson: We look at the astonishing fact that we live in a completely material universe
[13:43] herman Bergson: Every atom is as dead as a duck..
[13:43] Clint Pheocene: yes what advantage do qualitative states provide to the functioning of the mechanical brain?
[13:43] herman Bergson: And yet..here we are conscious...
[13:44] herman Bergson: That is a big discussion Clint, yes...
[13:44] Mick Nerido: yet life comes from inanimate matter
[13:44] herman Bergson: I am still working on that issue....because I don't like the qualia turn at all :-)
[13:44] Clint Pheocene: life can be explained in terms of inanimate matter but not consciousness....for example, philosophical zombies are perfectly explained by todays physics
[13:45] herman Bergson: oh my...the zombie thought experiment...
[13:45] herman Bergson: I am still trying to figure out how to deal with that stidetrack, Clint ㋡
[13:45] herman Bergson: This project is a matter of work in progress ^_^
[13:46] Clint Pheocene: absolutely...we have a long way to go
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes , but it is fascinating...
[13:47] Mick Nerido: What does it all mean, Herman?
[13:47] herman Bergson: when they can replace braincells by a chip which participates in the brian processes....where does it lead to...
[13:47] herman Bergson: What do you mean Mick ...with 'all'
[13:48] Pirie Takacs thinks...but, the fact that a body can live, and it's made up of inanimate atoms - maybe we are looking at atoms the wrong way? Maybe we don't yet know all the PARTS that make us up?
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Is the universe meaningful in you view?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Pirie that could be pretty well the case
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: there is a story about the dna
[13:48] herman Bergson: No Mick...the universe has no meaning or purpose at all
[13:49] herman Bergson: it is just there as far as I can understand
[13:49] Mick Nerido: But there is no proof..
[13:49] herman Bergson: Proof of what?
[13:50] Mick Nerido: So we can still speculate...
[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles...
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes we can Mick...
[13:50] herman Bergson: And Sybyle...
[13:50] herman Bergson: there is one interesting observation....
[13:51] herman Bergson: evolution has configured molecules in all kinds of ways...
[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: sure
[13:51] herman Bergson: and in such a way now and then so that there was created a completely new feature...
[13:51] herman Bergson: like molecules got organized in DNA strings....
[13:52] herman Bergson: or in such a way that consciousness emerged
[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: the scientists tried to decode the dna.. and thought, they could be able to understand when decoded
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes maybe we are looking in the wrong direction to understand the relation between brain and consciousness
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: but when done, they have to recognize there are more levels more structures to decode
[13:53] Mick Nerido: Consciousness could be a side effect
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: nice..isn't it?
[13:53] herman Bergson: There is at least so much understanding of DNA that we can maipulate genes and change living organisms
[13:54] Pirie Takacs believes that all animals have a consciousness, albeit some not as sophisticated as others
[13:54] Clint Pheocene: do shrimp have consciousness?
[13:54] herman Bergson: That would lead to a discussion on the definition of consciousness Pirie
[13:54] Pirie Takacs: Maybe we should look at why we should have consciousness at all?
[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: i think that consciousness is equal and not a sideeffect
[13:55] Pirie Takacs: I'n beginning to think it's a necessity for survival.
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: but if we hadn't how could we then act and react with our surroundings and do anything
[13:55] Clint Pheocene: plants survive without it
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:55] herman Bergson: That is what I mean by definition Pirie...
[13:56] Clint Pheocene: bejita, we could react just like any computer today
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: even an ant must have some sort of conciousness to be able t do hmm well what ants do
[13:56] herman Bergson: when you define consciousness as a mechanism which enables the organism to interact with its environment effectively you are right
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aha
[13:56] herman Bergson: but consciousness is more....
[13:56] Pirie Takacs nods... There are many parts to the definition, I think :)
[13:57] herman Bergson: most important feature is self-awareness for instance
[13:57] herman Bergson: if you make that part of the definition , most organisms do not have consciousness
[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Hm,. But if we have no self-awareness, how can we have consciousness at all? We must be able to separate ourselves from others and other things in our environment - thus we label them, and gather info about them
[13:58] herman Bergson: they have an awareness of their environment...sure
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aha
[13:59] herman Bergson: There you use self-awareness as one of the defining features of consciousness Pirie
[13:59] Mick Nerido: A computer can not be self aware?
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: Yes. Atm, I believe I would include that...*isn't 100% sure though
[14:00] herman Bergson: no....
[14:00] herman Bergson: But that will be for a next lecture Mick....
[14:00] Mick Nerido: perhaps it could be programed in...
[14:00] Clint Pheocene: then it would only behave as if it were self aware
[14:00] herman Bergson: I don't think it was easy today ..but a very good discussion, I would say :-)
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: a computer is sort of millions of lamp switches in miniature connected together and do everything by binary math but simply switch from on to off and back on
[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again..
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and a lamp switch cant be conscious what i know
[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman and all
[14:01] Sybyle Perdide: you were great Herman.as always
[14:01] Mick Nerido: Wonderful class thanks
[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed after Bejiita has finished ^_^
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: hehe now this was interesting
[14:01] Clint Pheocene: thanks everyone
[14:01] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman, it was great today
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gt more and more great
[14:02] herman Bergson: thank you...
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: / \
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: now u gave me a lot to think about
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[14:02] Pirie Takacs: Are there any books/authors/philosophers we could read about this, Herman?
[14:02] Clint Pheocene: when is the next cl;ass?
[14:02] herman Bergson: Tuesday, Clint
[14:02] herman Bergson: same time same place
[14:02] Clint Pheocene: great
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:03] herman Bergson: There are tons of books Pirie...
[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone
[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Ciska ㋡
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: bye all
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again
[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: bye cis
[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: By e Bej
[14:04] herman Bergson: I have a whole library of PDF files on the subject....
[14:04] herman Bergson: hundreds of titles
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: try David Chalmers and perhaps Daniel Dennett? I havent read their works yet
[14:04] herman Bergson: That is heavy stuff Clint...
[14:04] herman Bergson: Chalmers and Dennett don't agree with eachother
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: yes that was my intention
[14:04] Clint Pheocene: i agree with Chalmers
[14:05] herman Bergson: I still don't know how to evaluate the different points of view of these two...
[14:05] Clint Pheocene: from what i can read of their wikipedia page that is lol
[14:05] herman Bergson: interesting
[14:05] Pirie Takacs: Oh, I don't need them to agree - it may be better if they don't. I get more opinions then...*grins
[14:05] herman Bergson: oh I have better places to go for you...
[14:05] herman Bergson: got a minute?
[14:06] herman Bergson: Then I'll fetch a few URLs for you
[14:06] herman Bergson: Really top of the bill academic material
[14:06] Pirie Takacs: Ok...*eyes light up.
[14:06] herman Bergson: http://plato.stanford.edu/
[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.iep.utm.edu/
[14:07] herman Bergson: these two are internet classics
[14:07] Pirie Takacs: Thank you...*adds them to her list of Favourites
[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html
[14:08] herman Bergson: Stanford and IEP are the best and most scientific
[14:08] Pirie Takacs: I used to have access to university libraries, but now I don't, as I'm not studying at the moment...*sighs sadly
[14:09] Clint Pheocene: well there are lots of pdf versions of books on consciousness you can donwload...
[14:09] herman Bergson: Indeed Clint!
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: alright see you next class everyone…byw
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: *bye
[14:11] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)
[14:11] herman Bergson: Bye Clint
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: LOL then im me ill send you a few links
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: bye clint
[14:11] herman Bergson: thnx for your participation
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: Bye Pirie
[14:11] Clint Pheocene: thanks professor...bye
[14:12] Lizzy Pleides: just waiting for Sybyle
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: I am here
[14:13] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy, Sybyle
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman
[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Pirie
[14:13] Lizzy Pleides: good bye Herman!
[14:13] Pirie Takacs: Bye, sybyle :)

Lecture 345: Property dualism

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 conscious
2. No physical object can be conscious
Therefore
3. 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 actions
2. 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 Discussion

herman 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 Qwark
herman Bergson: This is an attempt to save dualism....
herman Bergson: Is it saved?
Qwark Allen: i`m not sure
Qwark Allen: but was a good try for sure
Mick Nerido: Very weird save...
herman Bergson: yes but in my opinion you still keep the same problems as with substance dualism
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmm
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i doubt it
herman Bergson: yes Mich...what sounds a bit odd is that consciousness is some kind of side effect of the physical brain
herman 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 mind
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): have to review properties
herman 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 question
herman Bergson: how do properties exist...?
herman Bergson: a tomato doesn't need a conscious observer to exist...
herman Bergson: its redness????
Lizzy Pleides: detection
herman 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 yes
herman Bergson: this line of questioning has along tradition
herman Bergson: You say yes Mick..ok....
herman Bergson: How do we see, detect, experience this redness?
Mick Nerido: Redness is a light wavelenth
Lizzy Pleides: as a remind?
Lizzy Pleides: it must have been an experience once
herman 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 properties
herman Bergson: We'll get to that issue later...
herman Bergson: What I now only want to bring to your attention is
herman Bergson: that we take properties as such obvious things….
herman Bergson: but when you really begin to ask questions, philosophical questions
herman Bergson: then properties are not at all such obvious things
herman 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 forest
herman Bergson: well....suppose you never have seen a tomato....
herman Bergson: But you know that wavelength X is called to show you red
herman Bergson: So you know what red is....the property of an object....wavelength X
herman 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 tomato
herman 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 properties
herman 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 redness
herman 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 Online
Sybyle Perdide: meaningless for yo
herman Bergson: It would still be that specific wavelength Mick.you always could pick out red objects with the right equipment
herman 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): right
herman 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 bergie
herman Bergson: Bye Bergie
Ciska Riverstone: bye Bergfrau
Gemma 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 Online
herman Bergson: Thank you all for your attention and participation
Ciska Riverstone: thank you Herman
herman Bergson: Class dismissed „ã°
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursday
Sybyle Perdide: thanks a lot
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): scrool down on the paper
wolk Writer is Offline
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): article about class
Mick Nerido: Thanks for the brain exercise!
Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!

342: Was Descartes with his Dualism yet right?

In fact it is remarkable, that in the philosophy of mind we speak of "The Mind - Body PROBLEM". Is it really a problem and in what sense is it a problem?

Let's see, what most people take for granted. Real facts:
1. You have a mind and a body;
2. These normally work together;
3. Your body is something physical and, thus, everybody can see you;

4. However, nobody can look into your mind. We love stories of mind readers, but so far these are still fairy tales
5. Which means that tho everybody can see your physical outside, you have privileged access to the content of your mind.

These are apparently rather obvious facts of life. We all know that we have a body and a mind and that the mind is not the same as the body.

But when you put these obvious facts under a philosophical magnifying glass, there may rise serious questions? Especially, ok….the body is physical, but the mind? What kind of material is a mind made of.

And when I look at this physical body of mine, makes it sense to ask where my mind is? Is it really in my head, as I am inclined to think?

The simplest position that makes sense regarding these questions is called Dualism, a philosophical answer to such questions developed by Descartes (1596 - 1650).

Descartes thought to have proved that the mind really was distinct from the body. According to him there are two substances in the universe: the physical and the mental.

The physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics.

The mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness.

The logic of Descartes arguments has had such an impact on our thinking about the mind, that we still are prone to take a dualistic approach when we talk about our body and mind.

Maybe you could say, that Descartes showed with strong and logical arguments, that our common sense ideas about the existence of a mind in a body are justified.

The arguments lead to two related conclusions:
1. that your mind is in no way the same thing as your body or any part of your body;
2. that what is essential to you is not your body but your mind.

Crucial to the argument is a basic principle which was later named by Leibniz (1646 -1717) the "indiscernibility of identicals".

The basic idea is: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing-- then anything true of one is true of the other or more technically said: For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.

I guess most of you will know Descartes strategy to discover absolutely certain knowledge. He would have loved the movie the Matrix and would have said…there, you see? All can be fake; everything is only in your mind. You can doubt almost everything.

And here comes the proof, that Dualism MUST be right. Remember the "indiscernibility of identicals" principle. What does it tell us? If A and B are identical, are the very same thing, then what true is of A is true of B as well.

So IF the body is identical with the mind …. remember the slogan "We are our brain!", then what is true of the body is true of the mind.

However, I truly can doubt the reality of my body. I can imagine that I have a body or some evil demon makes me believe that I have a body.

But can an evil demon make me imagine that I am doubting? Were I to doubt that I was doubting, I still would be doubting.

The same applies to thinking. I still would be thinking. That means….whatever there is in reality, only of the existence of the mind, my mind, I can be absolutely certain.

In other words, I say something that is true of my mind, which is not true of my body. So body and mind can not be identical substances. Thence Dualism is right!


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡
[13:22] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:22] Adriana Jinn: very interesting
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you Qwark...
[13:23] Qwark Allen: i arrived just in time
[13:23] herman Bergson: If anyone has a question or remark...the floor is yours ㋡
[13:23] herman Bergson smiles
[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: i can see that if the mind isn't visible there is no such thing as 2 thing, but only the body, a thinking body
[13:23] Jenna Felton is Offline
[13:23] herman Bergson: In coming lectures I'll show you that Dualism can't be true...
[13:24] Qwark Allen: we are matter and electricity
[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: that mean that there isn't a duality but or just a mind that we cannot see as a thing,
[13:24] Qwark Allen: 2 different things
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well.....
[13:24] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that there really were two different substances....
[13:25] herman Bergson: Therefor his ideas are called substance dualism....
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: this is the position of descartes as only the mind, as a thin with all into it, that made me think of the opposite
[13:25] Mick Nerido: like earth, air water fire?
[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll see in coming lectures that attempts have been made to uphold a weaker form of dualism
[13:25] Qwark Allen: science nowadays says the same, we cannot explain conscience, but seems we are getting the idea how the brain process the information
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: why didn't he explore as leibniz the posibility of no 2 thing?
[[13:26] herman Bergson: A philosopher he knew...Spinoza denied that there were two substances...
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: because dualism explained the "inherent truths" that felt real due to their religious socialization as children
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its difficult to figure out where he had the confirmation of the mind as a substance,,,
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Druth.....Descartes has a religious bias...
[13:27] herman Bergson: He had to leave matter to science en the mental/the soul to religion
[13:27] herman Bergson: It was a kind of intellectual escape for him
[13:28] herman Bergson: Spinoza was severely punished for his monistic ideas...
[13:29] herman Bergson: He dared to say that when the body dies there doesn't remain a soul...
[13:29] herman Bergson: that lives on for ever
[13:29] herman Bergson: immortal soul...yes
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: so that would explain his rejection of the earthly body importance?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes could leave that out of the debate
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: as low.... or insignificant, and all in the soul or mind or spirit?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes ...since decartes western thought has put the ratio at first place....
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: well we had that influence a lot is it
[13:30] herman Bergson: nowadays you see that we leave that position
[13:31] herman Bergson: and say that we are not mainly RATIONAL beings...
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: lol
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: :)
[13:31] herman Bergson: In fact Freud already pointed at that fact by defining the subconscious
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: in gestalt they pointed the subconscious into the body,,
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: when in contact with certain part of the body , lost memory came back
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes...but as something that influences our actions....
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: If nobody has any questions or so anymore.....
[13:33] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation....
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: if the mind is linked to the body as separate throught the nervous wire, than those wire pass all throught it, i see a brain body....
[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[13:33] Doodus Moose: Thanks, indeed, Professor!
[13:34] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll see how right Dualism is
[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: thank you Herman - very interesting
[13:34] herman Bergson: or wrong of course ㋡
[13:34] Doodus Moose: hihi
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: its very interesting, mm my cup of tea
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: thanks
[13:34] herman Bergson: My pleasure Alaya
[13:35] Doodus Moose: now to use my mind to decide what to feed the body :-)
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: what if we all get so firmly converted to dualism that you can't bring us back around?
[13:35] Qwark Allen: very interesting as always
[13:35] Qwark Allen paid you L$100.
[13:35] herman Bergson: I am not afraid of that Druth....
[13:35] Doodus Moose: byeeeeee!!!!!!
[13:35] herman Bergson: Philosophy is about clear and logical arguments.
[13:36] Adriana Jinn: thank you very much professor
[13:36] herman Bergson: So do Decartes arguments hold?
[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll put that to the test!
[13:36] herman Bergson: It will be interesting ㋡
[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡
[13:37] Adriana Jinn: as always
[13:37] Mick Nerido: Mind over matter or matter over mind..
[13:37] Qwark Allen: seems we are still in the mind/jar theme
[13:37] herman Bergson: THAT is a dualistic way of thinking Mick
[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*
[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: or again maybe not ;) - we will find out -maybe its just like someone said the other day: we need a new language ;)
[13:38] Mick Nerido: That is our common sense way of thinking
[13:38] herman Bergson: That may be true Ciska...
[13:39] herman Bergson: In 1986 Patricia Churchland said so in her book Neurophilosophy
[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: language makes borders too
[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: not needed ones i guess - useless ones for understanding sometimes
[13:39] herman Bergson: And there are others that claim that our mental concepts will become obsolete...
[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: yes...
[13:40] herman Bergson: Like we now don't speak of spells and whitchcraft etc anymore...
[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: other words - same concept different way of seeing it ;)))
[13:40] herman Bergson: yes....something like that
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well- we will see what you offer herman - always great to get insights ㋡
[13:41] Mick Nerido: Thanks, bye
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: have a great time everyone
[13:41] herman Bergson: Like water, earth, fire and air are no longer concepts in physics...
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks
[13:41] herman Bergson: Bye ciska