334: The materialist Brain 2

To say that everything is material sound rather simple and obvious. However, in the hands of philosophers such a statements shows to be not so simple as it looks like.

Philosophers and scientists have had various views regarding the constitution and behavior of material objects

and over whether every material thing is a body, or whether forces, or waves, or fields of force are also realities in their own right.

To begin with we could define a material thing as a being possessing many physical properties and no other properties.

A possible list of properties: position in space and time, size, shape, duration, mass, velocity, solidity, inertia, electric charge, spin, rigidity, temperature, hardness, magnetic field intensity, and the like.

Note that I say at the end of the list "and the like". We can not exclude the possibility that we discover new physical properties.

In other words, we have no fully determinate answer to what a material thing is. So what is a materialist claiming, when he says "there only exists matter"?

This looks like a problem for a materialist, but it isn't that bad. There is a broad consensus on which properties are physical properties.

Therefore when a new property would be discovered it would readily classified as a physical property and not as some anomaly. If that were the case more research is required only.

For extreme versions of materialism the psychological characteristics people ascribe to themselves and to one another—consciousness, purposiveness, aspiration, desire, for example—are not considered to be physical properties.

This is an interesting point, for just suppose that we say that consciousness IS a property of matter. The contemporary philosopher of mind, David Chalmers (1966- …) for instance, holds that view.

We will discuss his ideas later. The term that goes along with such views is panpsychism, or as Chalmers calls it: "panprotopsychism".

As I remarked in the previous lecture, for the materialist there is no second class of nonmaterial beings, like Descartes had suggested.

There are no incorporeal souls or spirits, no spiritual principalities or powers, no angels or devils, no demiurges and no gods , if these are conceived as immaterial entities. Hence, nothing that happens can be attributed to the action of such beings.

An other fundamental point of view of the materialist is: “Everything that can be explained can be explained on the basis of laws involving only the relevant physical conditions.”

This too leads to interesting discussions, for you are ready now to conclude that a materialist must be a determinist too.

Determinism means that everything that happens is a link in an infinite chain of causes and effects. If that is so, then whatever we do is caused too, not freely chosen.

Here we touch on the issue of the existence of free will. Due to neurobiological findings nowadays you hear the claim, that free will is only an illusion. We definitely will discuss this matter too!

Recently, the appeal of determinism has been weakened by the development and success of quantum theory, and many contemporary materialists are not committed to determinism.

Materialism has been, traditionally, a minority view, indeed a rather daring and scandalous one, but it has made considerable progress over the past century, particularly among educated European peoples.

So it will be interesting to pay some attention to the history of materialism too and learn why it has gotten a broader acceptance today.


The Discussion


[2011/06/09 13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you..
[2011/06/09 13:21] herman Bergson: The floor is yours now....:-)
[2011/06/09 13:21] Bejiita Imako: oki
[2011/06/09 13:22] Zevio Droz: how does materialism imply determinism
[2011/06/09 13:22] herman Bergson: causality Zevio...
[2011/06/09 13:23] Mick Nerido: The material world is also energy as in E=MCsquared
[2011/06/09 13:23] herman Bergson: every cause has its fixed effect
[2011/06/09 13:23] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:23] herman Bergson: if the effect is a fixed thing ..there is no choice...
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: no free will
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: .
[2011/06/09 13:24] Zevio Droz: have they found particles or the like that act completely randomly?
[2011/06/09 13:24] herman Bergson: yes..
[2011/06/09 13:25] herman Bergson: quantum mechanics
[2011/06/09 13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is a good question zevio
[2011/06/09 13:25] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:25] Zevio Droz: neurobiology
[2011/06/09 13:26] herman Bergson: well...the basic idea is...
[2011/06/09 13:26] herman Bergson: that the behavior of some atom or neutron...I dont know..is literally unpredictable..
[2011/06/09 13:27] herman Bergson: it will decay..at some moment..but there is no physical law to predict that moment
[2011/06/09 13:27] herman Bergson: completely random...
[2011/06/09 13:27] Mick Nerido: uncertinty principle?
[2011/06/09 13:27] Bejiita Imako: its like schrödinger's cat
[2011/06/09 13:27] Bejiita Imako: u don't know the answer until you look but then you also affect
[2011/06/09 13:28] herman Bergson: so In neurobiology they refer to that basic atomic feature...
[2011/06/09 13:28] Zevio Droz: so are you talking about what consciousness is made out of?
[2011/06/09 13:28] Mick Nerido: Yes Bejiita, you cause a change just by looking
[2011/06/09 13:29] Bejiita Imako: thats why quantum encryption is unbreakable
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: We'll discourse that issue when we are dealing with free will
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: Consciousness is on the menu Zevio...
[2011/06/09 13:29] herman Bergson: But not yet being served :-)
[2011/06/09 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: ;p
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: it's possible to not have free will and free will still be possible
[2011/06/09 13:30] herman Bergson: First we have to understand contemporary thought about materialism...
[2011/06/09 13:30] Zevio Droz: ok
[2011/06/09 13:30] Alaya Kumaki: on the menu, but beeing created, maybe with all medias information we get a materially made grip to all what is going on
[2011/06/09 13:31] herman Bergson: It is fundament to our quest into the Mystery of the Brain
[2011/06/09 13:31] Zevio Droz: i'm trying to apply materialism to internal matters, did you have something else in mind?
[2011/06/09 13:32] herman Bergson: What do you mean Zevio?
[2011/06/09 13:32] Zevio Droz: if we live in a universe made solely of matter and all is determined i would like to know how that affects the mind, but i was wondering if you wanted to go in a different direction
[2011/06/09 13:32] Zevio Droz: and what that direction is
[2011/06/09 13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hope it will all be clear at another class or classes
[2011/06/09 13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but as usual more questions :-)
[2011/06/09 13:34] herman Bergson: the issue of determinism and free will will be a whole chapter here in class
[2011/06/09 13:34] Zevio Droz: i'm confused about what the current discussion is
[2011/06/09 13:34] herman Bergson: Materialism...
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: the statement that there is only one thing in this word: matter
[2011/06/09 13:35] Zevio Droz: do you have a question for the class concerning materialism that we can discuss?
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: I guess you missed a few classes Zevio ^_*
[2011/06/09 13:35] Zevio Droz: oh i see
[2011/06/09 13:35] herman Bergson: Doesnt work that way....
[2011/06/09 13:36] herman Bergson: This is not a place for endless discussions about some question...
[2011/06/09 13:36] herman Bergson: I am teaching a course about the Mystery of the Brain...
[2011/06/09 13:36] Mick Nerido: The new cern accelerator will give us more information soon
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: fully been running all day now
[2011/06/09 13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: Or DOOM US ALL! DOOM, I TELL YOU!!!
[2011/06/09 13:37] Alaya Kumaki: punishment and hope are the old ways to learn mick now, its not as that since we know more
[2011/06/09 13:37] herman Bergson: That would be great Mick if it helps us here :-)
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: it works great
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: we'll see
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[2011/06/09 13:37] Zevio Droz: one reason i doubt materialism is near death experiences
[2011/06/09 13:37] Bejiita Imako: I am keeping an eye in that thing
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: call me superstitious
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: but there are people having really profound experiences either immediately before death or after death
[2011/06/09 13:38] herman Bergson: ok Zevio..you are superstiscious ^_^
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• LOL ‚ô•
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we always go back to the same questions
[2011/06/09 13:38] Zevio Droz: heh
[2011/06/09 13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 'or new ones
[2011/06/09 13:38] Qwark Allen: hypersticious
[2011/06/09 13:39] herman Bergson: Yes ..Gemma ..isnt it funny..:-)
[2011/06/09 13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: While in a near death experience, you still have all your memories, your associations and so on. Why should experiencing something like that mean it's true? Do our senses truly go that far?
[2011/06/09 13:39] Zevio Droz: it doesn't mean it's true, but it means that the brain is able to create a vivid reality independent of the physical world
[2011/06/09 13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: After all, your brain is breaking down. A few weird experiences should not be unexpected...
[2011/06/09 13:40] Zevio Droz: just as vivid as life
[2011/06/09 13:40] herman Bergson: The near death experience is already completely understood in neurobiology...
[2011/06/09 13:40] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Or... just as vivid as your imagination, fired by neurotransmitter bursts from dying neurons
[2011/06/09 13:40] herman Bergson: They can give you that expierience in no time with electrodes on your head
[2011/06/09 13:41] Mick Nerido: A stiff drink works also
[2011/06/09 13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: It's what XTC does... it fires your neuronal supply of transmitter substance.
[2011/06/09 13:41] herman Bergson: the idea that you experience something supernatural or so in a near death experience is complete nonsense
[2011/06/09 13:41] Zevio Droz: ok then how can a human distinguish any sort of "supernatural" experience if it can all be blamed on the brain
[2011/06/09 13:41] Zevio Droz: so then you're a materialist
[2011/06/09 13:41] Sousinne Ceriano: I am so glad you asked that, Zevio =)
[2011/06/09 13:42] herman Bergson: start reading to begin with lecture 266 Zevio :-)
[2011/06/09 13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: The answer is, of course, that EVERYTHING we experience is experienced directly because of our brain.
[2011/06/09 13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: And if we can experience it, it's not supernatural at all.
[2011/06/09 13:43] Mick Nerido: What about dreams?
[2011/06/09 13:43] herman Bergson: there is no supernatural....
[2011/06/09 13:43] herman Bergson: Dreams? Random brain activity while sleeping Mick
[2011/06/09 13:43] Sousinne Ceriano: Whether it's the voice of God, near death experiences, or oneness with the ALL, or anything else.
[2011/06/09 13:43] Zevio Droz: call it the natural then
[2011/06/09 13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: Indeed.
[2011/06/09 13:44] herman Bergson: All rubbish Sousinne :-)
[2011/06/09 13:44] Zevio Droz: well then thats the discussion then
[2011/06/09 13:44] herman Bergson: We have to stick to the facts...
[2011/06/09 13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: And if we're at "natural" rather than "supernatural", then considering the case for the existence of a God becomes MUCH easier.
[2011/06/09 13:45] herman Bergson: With all due respect Sousinne
[2011/06/09 13:45] herman Bergson: But that weird idea...people call god...where does it come from???
[2011/06/09 13:46] Qwark Allen: must be very old idea
[2011/06/09 13:46] herman Bergson: Except of course it is part of our culture historically
[2011/06/09 13:46] herman Bergson: Bu tthe idea makes no sense at all...
[2011/06/09 13:46] druth Vlodovic: human nature to fear the unknown and want methods of controlling the world
[2011/06/09 13:46] Mick Nerido: God only knows
[2011/06/09 13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: The human brain has evolved to be able to feel AWE. Awe is something that puts us in mind of belonging, purpose and group-think.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: oh yes Druth,,,,that is of course a reason
[2011/06/09 13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: It makes us feel small, irrelevant... and thus makes us ONLY a part of something bigger.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: hold on....
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: That idea...
[2011/06/09 13:47] Sousinne Ceriano: It probably has been important for some reason or other.
[2011/06/09 13:47] herman Bergson: that we feel small...
[2011/06/09 13:48] druth Vlodovic: or makes us feel integrated with something bigger, in the same scale as the world, or even bigger
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Well depends on whether you are looking out at space or down at insects
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): insects*
[2011/06/09 13:48] herman Bergson: yes Gemma :-)
[2011/06/09 13:48] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:48] Bejiita Imako: yes
[2011/06/09 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): or microbes in a scope
[2011/06/09 13:48] Qwark Allen: good point, i was only thinking in space
[2011/06/09 13:48] herman Bergson: Our brain produces all the ideas we have...
[2011/06/09 13:48] Sousinne Ceriano: As we grew up as a species, we clothed the feeling of awe in spiritual, then religious, terms.
[2011/06/09 13:49] Qwark Allen: now i feel a gigant! ty gemma :-)
[2011/06/09 13:49] herman Bergson: the God idea is a way to understand life..feel comfortable with it...
[2011/06/09 13:49] Sousinne Ceriano: Ending up with the concept of GOD.
[2011/06/09 13:49] Qwark Allen: :-)
[2011/06/09 13:49] herman Bergson: We can accept the most cruel experiences with the words..Yes ..it was the will of god...
[2011/06/09 13:49] Bejiita Imako: hahah
[2011/06/09 13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: But the words are meaningless.
[2011/06/09 13:50] Sousinne Ceriano: The feeling is the relevant part.
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): perhaps to you but not to others
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): depends on belief
[2011/06/09 13:50] druth Vlodovic: easier, for me, to say "that just happened, there is no god causing it" but I walked a long way to get there
[2011/06/09 13:50] herman Bergson: That is the point Gemma..
[2011/06/09 13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right
[2011/06/09 13:51] Alaya Kumaki: why do we need to define, what it is, when there is nothing to say, but to observe what we can and let go what we can't see
[2011/06/09 13:51] Bejiita Imako: aaa guess so
[2011/06/09 13:51] Zevio Droz: the only real "evidence" is experiential evidence
[2011/06/09 13:51] Sousinne Ceriano: No? I would think me and they feel the same thing, we need it just the same... but we dress that feeling in different clothes.
[2011/06/09 13:51] Zevio Droz: it depends on if you find that valid or not
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: seems we are all mindless
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: no one so far could measure a mind
[2011/06/09 13:51] Qwark Allen: yet we have one
[2011/06/09 13:52] herman Bergson: We will get to that Qwark....
[2011/06/09 13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: Zevio: experiential evidence THAT YOU CAN SHARE.
[2011/06/09 13:52] herman Bergson: Will be a long way perhaps..but we get to that!
[2011/06/09 13:52] Sousinne Ceriano: Feeling the touch of God proves only that your brain is capable of giving you that experience.
[2011/06/09 13:52] druth Vlodovic: I have to be off, have fun all, and thank you Herman
[2011/06/09 13:53] herman Bergson: Be well Druth
[2011/06/09 13:53] Qwark Allen: not because our rudimentary science can`t explain or test, doesn`t mean it is not logical or that not exist
[[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: i think the human species is too young to jump to conclusions about these things
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: That is a tricky statement Qwark....
[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: we think we know everything at this point
[2011/06/09 13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure there is more to discover
[2011/06/09 13:54] Qwark Allen: sometimes i see us here saying that if we can test, it`s real, if not it`s a question of believe
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: To say that...what science cant explain can yet exist...
[2011/06/09 13:54] herman Bergson: that is opening Pandora's box..
[2011/06/09 13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): well it is
[2011/06/09 13:54] Qwark Allen: but the science we have it`s not that sophisticated
[2011/06/09 13:54] Zevio Droz: i see
[2011/06/09 13:54] Sousinne Ceriano: professor...
[2011/06/09 13:55] Qwark Allen: will be in the futur
[2011/06/09 13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: You can still make epidemiological research.
[2011/06/09 13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is true too
[2011/06/09 13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): both are true
[2011/06/09 13:55] Bejiita Imako: ah
[2011/06/09 13:55] Sousinne Ceriano: If God is claimed to heal the sick... we can test what frequency it happens at.
[2011/06/09 13:56] herman Bergson: Based on Qwark 's statement...everything can exist..whatever you think of
[2011/06/09 13:56] Mick Nerido: My senses tell me the earth is flat...
[2011/06/09 13:56] Sousinne Ceriano: There are methods that do not require us to understand a concept to measure it.
[2011/06/09 13:56] herman Bergson: It never happens Sousinne
[2011/06/09 13:56] Qwark Allen: +/-
[2011/06/09 13:57] Zevio Droz: it is a pandoras box
[2011/06/09 13:57] Sousinne Ceriano: It doesn't. But if there was a significant difference between, say, believers and nonbelievers in "miraculous recoveries", there would be a case for God.
[2011/06/09 13:57] herman Bergson: On of the best discussions ever, my friends...
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson looks at his watch...
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh have to go!
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss class
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: ok
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thurs
[2011/06/09 13:58] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you professor, and sorry for being late.
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu
[2011/06/09 13:58] Zevio Droz: :)
[2011/06/09 13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): maybe tuesday depending
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation..
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: nice once again
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: „ã°
[2011/06/09 13:58] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor
[2011/06/09 13:58] Bejiita Imako: interesting subjects
[2011/06/09 13:58] herman Bergson: You are excused sousinne :-)
[2011/06/09 13:58] MultiMuse: thank you for the lecture.
[2011/06/09 13:58] Zevio Droz: seeya herman
[2011/06/09 13:59] Sousinne Ceriano: bye people

333: The materialist Brain 1

Today we have arrived at a quintessential point in our quest into the Mystery of the Brain. Today we'll begin the study of materialism.

We can start with two questions:
1. What does it MEAN to say that everything is physical?
You could call this an ontological question. We ask what there is in reality.

and
2. Is it TRUE to say that everything is physical?
This you could regard as an epistemological question. Here we ask how we can obtain knowledge of the material world.

The first question, depending on the emphasis, can be understood in two ways.
One: What does it mean that EVERYTHING is physical
Two: what does it mean that everything is PHYSICAL.

As an ontology materialism has along history as I mentioned in the previous lecture, not only in Western philosophy, but also in Indian philosophy.

In both cultures it is scorned by all kinds of religious groups. From their perspective for good reasons of course. There is no room for the supernatural in a physical world.

In many previous lectures I have shown you by explaining the phenomenon of our Supersense and by showing results of brain research and neurobiological findings, how we can interpret supernatural things in a material world.

Let me start with a general description of this ontological position. Eventually I hope to give you an acceptable answer to our two questions.

Materialism is the general theory that the ultimate constituents of reality are material or physical bodies, elements or processes.

It is a form of monism in that it holds that everything in existence is reducible to what is material or physical in nature.

It is opposed to dualistic theories which claim that body and mind are distinct, and directly antithetical to a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter.

It is hostile to abstract objects, if these are viewed as more than just a manner of speaking .

An implication of materialism is that the diverse qualitative experiences we have are ultimately reducible to quantitative changes in objects or in our physiological functioning.

All the properties of things, including persons, are reducible to properties of matter.

Although the terms referring to psychic states such as intention, belief, desire and consciousness itself have a different sense and use than terms referring to material events,

a consistent materialist would deny that mentalistic
terms have reference to anything other than physical events or physiological changes in our brains.

The enormous advances in the sciences have contributed storehouses of empirical data that are often used to support materialism. I already have presented a lot of this evidence to you.


Many philosophers have been attracted to materialism both because of its reductive simplicity and its association with scientific knowledge.

So, let's investigate what materialism has to offer and how tenable this viewpoint regarding ourselves and the world around us is.


The discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours as always :-)
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: smile..without our material body we have no idea of supersense
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: wb Berg
[13:25] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty...
[13:25] Mick Nerido: Materilists would say there is ONLY the body
[13:25] herman Bergson: Supersense is just a name for our inclination to believe in the supernatural
[13:26] herman Bergson: Mr. STevens!!!!!!
[13:26] herman Bergson: This is not a dancehall
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: hm..one can say a lot words.. but as mentioned in former lectures..this doesn't proof the contrary:)
[13:26] Evie1: lol
[13:26] Evie1: Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.
[13:26] Stevens Beaumont: i am sorry
[13:26] Stevens Beaumont: i stop immediately
[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: steve..lokk for stop all animations:9
[13:27] herman Bergson: move it...plz!!! go outside!
[13:27] Mick Nerido: Yes Evie
[13:27] Evie1: I think he is moving it
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: ok, one argument against non-materialism, in regards to having souls, is the effect that physical/chemical changes to the brain can have on personality
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: why is that against materialismedruth
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: presumably a spirit/soul would have it's own personality and be immune to physical alterations
[13:28] herman Bergson: What do you mean by that Druth?
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur, my question too...
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: um, I meant the opposite
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: grin no reason to yellat her....
[13:29] Mick Nerido: There is no scientific evidence for anything behind the material world
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: smile..mick ..may be scientific evidence is not all the answers?
[13:30] Evie1: The ontological doctrine that states that everything that exists is, or depends on, matter ....
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: you're just afraid of excess electrons finding your computer
[13:30] Mick Nerido: true Baldur
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: well evie we can't deny mater
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hmm frying the drive is no good
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Evie1 ...what actually exists is only matter
[13:31] herman Bergson: and states the matter is in
[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: no what we can see as exsistant is matter...
[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: wehat our senses can't grasp .. could be there too
[13:32] herman Bergson: We'll elaborate on this subject enough to understand the strong and weak points of this ontology
[13:33] herman Bergson: .
[13:33] herman Bergson: It probably doesn't seem to bother you at all that the supernatural is trashed???!
[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: smile..but we have to use our mind -brain with what its got..and that is matter...
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: not trashed..just kept aside as long as we don't know more
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur...that matters a lot :-))
[13:34] herman Bergson: ohh....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Belief is different then proof
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: so we should stick to the matter and leave the supernaturalxoption open:9
[13:35] herman Bergson: You expect knowledge of the supernatural in the future, Baldur?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: I guess
[13:35] Evie1: does materialism mean the end of spirituality ?
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is an odd idea....leave the supernatural open
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: lol.. i never expect anything..but thingsxmight happen......
[13:35] herman Bergson: That depends Evie1....
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: for one thin we can for example deny the supernatural properties of magic
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: spirituality can be the exploration of self and finding peace and meaning in your life
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: without the inherent politics of religion
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: cause thats breaking of physical laws and that we know is impossible
[13:36] herman Bergson: ontologically yes, as a psychological feature of the brain no
[13:36] herman Bergson: Our brain is wired in such a way, that we are just inclined to believe in supernatural things
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: bej... quantum physics have no physical law exlanation:9
[13:37] herman Bergson: this is based on the feature of the brain/mind....to want to see structure in its environment....the drive to explain...
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: qantum physics is a bit strange but still to magic
[13:37] Evie1: hmmmm
[13:37] herman Bergson: and where there is no explanation..the mind comes up with one
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: but what quantum physics is is fixed numbers with nothing in between
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: well herman when man started to think.. abstract-he could think of everything.. even supernatural
[13:38] druth Vlodovic: the supernatural is usually simpler and more satisfying than the real
[13:38] Mick Nerido: It's a good story
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: smile bej-the nothing in between is the interesting point:)
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....that is what makes it so attractive...
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: like good sex druth?
[13:39] Evie1: The mind governing all has another vibration within the whole aspect. The mind focuses our energies to a material outcome of all our experiences. Or it focuses for a spiritual outcome of our experiences. The two seldom work together to produce an outcome of growth within the spirit.
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: umm
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i d say supernaturality is so our brains can get relaxed and not think itself to pieces about things we cant understand for the moment
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: then we make up our own explanations and rest our minds on them
[13:39] herman Bergson: I would agree Bejiita :-)
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: explanation is the word bej...,language and communication
[13:40] herman Bergson: .
[13:40] Evie1: but when we focus on the material things we forget about the spiritual side
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:40] Mick Nerido: We are finite beings in an infinite universe..
[13:40] herman Bergson: I wouldn't agree with that Mick....
[13:41] Mick Nerido: smiles
[13:41] herman Bergson: Infinity is a concept created by our own mind.....not by definition something that exists
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: now..we all werre babies once..what did we focus on....and what did our ancestors- say 1000000 years ago focus on..
[13:41] Evie1: true
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ahö
[13:42] Mick Nerido: I know it is impossible to explain therefore the supernatural
[13:42] herman Bergson smiles
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I suspect that we have connections to reality that we don't really know about
[13:42] Clerisse Beeswing: food shelter warmth important
[13:42] herman Bergson: maybe the concept of the infinite is the supernatural part of mathematics :-)
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: might be
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: they are finding that time and matter aren't fixed things, it would be odd if we evolved without the capacity to take advantage of that
[13:43] Mick Nerido: True herman
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: take advantage? how -and for what?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...as you all see...
[13:43] herman Bergson: studying materialism is gonna be fun :-)
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hhe
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: might be for sure
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: sure..we'll be talking about ourselves:)
[13:44] herman Bergson: YEs Baldur...:-)
[13:44] herman Bergson: And we are bloody interesting people :-)
[13:44] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:44] Clerisse Beeswing: true
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:45] Evie1: So how can everything be physical ... surely it cannot be
[13:45] druth Vlodovic: I'm not convinced that all "supernatural" events have no basis in fact, but I'm not sure we need a "spirit realm" to explain it all
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Never boring!
[13:45] herman Bergson: Wait.....
[13:45] herman Bergson: Evie1
[13:45] Clerisse Beeswing: true in some ways
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: isn't spirit realm a product we created druth?
[13:45] Evie1: call em Evie please ... smiles
[13:45] herman Bergson: Why can it not be the case that everything is physical?
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: like shower cream'
[13:46] herman Bergson: Where does the idea come from that it cant be so?
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: easy...from not understanding.......
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: from wanting meaning and purpose
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: but able to think about it
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: and due to communication
[13:47] herman Bergson: then the supernatural is just our imagination...
[13:47] Evie1: hmmm I meat everything has to be physical sorry (including consciousness
[13:47] herman Bergson: That is ok with me....
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: that can't be the conclusion herman....
[13:48] herman Bergson: ohhhhhhh....consciousness.......
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: we used to imagine people flying through the air, silly really
[13:48] herman Bergson: Still a big big hurdle to take Evie!
[13:48] herman Bergson: .
[13:48] herman Bergson: on brooms, Druth?
[13:49] druth Vlodovic: ok, I haven't gotten my broom up to speed yet :)
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: well i think we should stick to the question: what does materialism mean to philosophy.. old and new
[13:49] herman Bergson: I have a Nimbus 2000 ^_^
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: if we accept it. shall we ignore plato and aristoteles'
[13:50] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:50] Mick Nerido: Flying is physical now was only imaginary to our ancestors
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: lucky
[13:50] Clerisse Beeswing: lol cool herman
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Mick...they just envied the birds
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: im unsure if id dare to fly on a small stick
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: seems not stable at all
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: with druth i would:)
[13:51] herman Bergson grins at Baldur
[13:51] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[13:51] herman Bergson: Don't be so obvious Baldur ^_^
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: grins..i thought i said something more intelligent before :)
[13:51] druth Vlodovic: you stay away from small sticks Baldur
[13:52] herman Bergson: But I share your opinion tho :-))
[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: ok druth... sigh
[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...I think we are all set for this new chapter....
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: gess so
[13:52] herman Bergson: Baldur has to take off on his broom I guess....so time to dismiss class
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation and nice discussion
[13:53] Clerisse Beeswing: ahhh I just got here
[13:53] druth Vlodovic: thank you herman
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: another interesting time here ㋡
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor :)
[13:53] herman Bergson: I am sorry Clerisse....
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman it was very intersting:)
[13:53] Clerisse Beeswing: thanks professor
[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you Beertje and CONNIE
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: time to go now, kisses :)
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Connie
[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye CONNIE
[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye :)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all soon again
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)) and ty class! see u thursday
[13:57] BALDUR Joubert: well..may bei shouldl.ea veyou with the girls herman:)
[13:58] druth Vlodovic: I dunno, is it safe?
[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: lol... you asking me for my opinion?
[13:58] herman Bergson: Ohhh....you are right Baldur...you are the only man left next to me :-)
[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: ok i get the maessage lol
[13:59] herman Bergson: Look at that...another girl... Hi oola ^_^
[13:59] oola Neruda: hi herman

332: The Brain and the Mind

I don't know what you think about it,but sometimes philosophers can drive you crazy with their discourse.

When you think, something is obvious and just a matter of common sense, then there comes a philosophers with his question mark and hits you on the head with it.

In the Mind - Body problem this is definitely the case. We work and live night and day with our body and mind and it all feels so common. And yet…….

We have seen that our language isn't that accurate at all to describe what seems so common to us. Dualism leaves us behind with a number of questions.

The most important one it the problem of the interaction between the mental and the physical. We know that they interact, but not as Descartes claimed, as two different substances.

We now know as a matter of fact that there is no mind when there is no brain. Thus the mind has a physical understructure: the brain.

That however does not answer the question HOW the mental and the physical interact. It doesn't tell us how aspects of our mental life are related to aspects of our brains.

It also doesn't answer the question how it is possible that such different features can work together. Dualism is still looking over our shoulder.

At least we can take it as a matter of fact that the mind and the brain are correlated, run in parallel. 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.

A classic example is the case of Phineas Gage. In September 1848, Gage was working on the railroad when a blasting charge sent an iron rod through his head.

The man wasn't even unconscious immediately after the accident. He survived, even tho a part of the frontal lobe was seriously damaged.

But although he recovered physically completely, his personality had changed. Before the accident he was a most efficient, capable and reliable railroad employee.

After the accident …to quote his physician:"He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint

or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible." - end quote

While common sense tells us that we have a mental and a physical life, that they are distinct from each other and yet interact, is this dualistic view almost completely rejected in cognitive science and neurobiology.

We need a substitute for dualism. There are only a few options. The most generally accepted theory now is monism as formulated by materialism.

Materialism assumes that there is only one reality, the reality as described in sciences as physics, chemistry, biology.

Still materialism is regarded as an unattractive ontology. In that sense it has a long history. Not only in Western culture, but also in for instance Indian philosophy there was a materialist school of thought.

Well established in the 6th or 8th century A.D and a school of thought that has been scorned by religious leaders in India and remains on the periphery of Indian philosophical thought.

In Western philosophy the forms of materialism extend from the ancient Greek atomistic materialism through eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scientifically based theories, to recent sophisticated defenses of various types of materialism.

In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.

Since it denies the existence of spiritual beings or forces, materialism typically is allied with atheism or agnosticism. A reason why there has been a lot op opposition against materialism.



The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll elaborate more on the modern developments of materialist thought
[13:23] herman Bergson: thank you
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours :-))
[13:24] druth Vlodovic: people typically connect materialism with purposelessness and purposelessness with hopelessness and despair
[13:24] herman Bergson: there is a strong tradition in teleologic thinking Druth.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: besides that...people think in terms of time.....they think of a future....
[13:25] herman Bergson: goals....directions....
[13:25] Rayne Queller: who are all these people?
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: sorry, what is the tradition in teleologic thinking?
[13:26] herman Bergson: the basic idea is ontologically that everything has a purpose....
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: yes the future promisses
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: Especially religions are supporting those ideas....afterlife...paradise...72 virgins etc
[13:27] Rayne Queller: does that not imply that the target calls the arrow, rather than the bow string pushes the arrow?
[13:27] Mick Nerido: If you don't believe in spirits then matter alone is very amazing...
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: ok, then the purpose becomes more important than reality, or reality is considered unreal
[13:28] herman Bergson: Sometimes Druth yes....
[13:28] herman Bergson: and indeed Mick...matter as such is amazing....breathtaking complex
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: their promise land , is and building it,,,as an utopia
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: no..realitiy that can't be understood, becomes a reality of its own druth
[13:29] herman Bergson: if you look at all biochemical processes in the brain.....
[13:29] herman Bergson: incredible how that ticks :-)
[13:29] Mick Nerido: Just look at the periodic table of elements!
[13:29] herman Bergson: ok..let's keep it simple ^_^
[13:30] herman Bergson: We have knowledge of these processes....
[13:30] Qwark Allen: there will be more elements on the universe then the ones we know
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: and the smallest elements of matter like the ones they study at ex CERN, when u go down to that low level its amazing how matter is really built up
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: look at out ancestors.. the biochemical processes were the same..
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: but they didn't think the way we did..
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: why are it these small particles
[13:30] herman Bergson: But we have no explanation for its ingenuity...
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: really amazing
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: with the same brain
[13:30] Rayne Queller: all things that I have ever seen have progressed causally in linear time from past to future. If we assume a telos, we must account for some force that influences events prior in time. That a future event in some way effects the present or past.
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes baldur ...
[13:31] Mick Nerido: Before we knew how complex matter is we had simpler ideas like spirits etc.
[13:31] RF Axel: Common sense, isn't? :)
[13:31] herman Bergson: The point is that there are no indications there there even exists a TELOS...
[13:32] RF Axel: Does materialism require that the current understanding of physical laws be complete?
[13:32] herman Bergson: We are just here ...with our common sense , yes :-)
[13:32] Rayne Queller: The notion of a spirit really does not explain anything, this spirit is an unknowable factor. It's constiution is unknown, it's mechanism is unknown, it's relation to matter is unknown.
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: if ghosts exist someday we'll have a scientific explanation for them
[13:32] Qwark Allen: all that doesn't explain the mind
[13:33] herman Bergson: No RF...then would physical science be complete now....
[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: smile.. that somethinbg is unknown doesn't mean its not possible
[13:33] Qwark Allen: it`s just not a question of matter
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if we acknowledge that there are many things yet to discover then we can start discovering them
[13:33] Qwark Allen: or we will be all like a brick
[13:33] herman Bergson: if you look at astronomy....we know still so little
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: the telos, separated? from the beeing as a spices to be it and to be alive as long as possible is the only telos i know of
[13:33] RF Axel: I don't believe we really understand Time, yet...
[13:33] Rayne Queller: It seems fallacy to assume that if you can't account for some event with known principles and elements, that postulating a mysterious unknown principle assures that this unknown and worse unknowable, would have the properties necessary to account for the original unknown
[13:34] herman Bergson: Do you mean by "spirit" the Mind Ryane
[13:34] Qwark Allen: there is no time
[13:34] Qwark Allen: we invented time
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: time is just a definition for things that aren't occurring at the same time
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: great quark..we invented herman too then
[13:34] Rayne Queller: what I mean is if the known brain matter can't account for mind. Then what makes yout thing that some unknown, unknowable, and undiscovered "Spirit" will be able to account for it
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: a measurment of how far between events
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: its not a force
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark.....the philosophy of time is more than one bookshelf :-)
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Time is relative to velocity
[13:34] Qwark Allen: time is relative
[13:34] RF Axel: And, if the multiverse exists, in a physical sense, and some sort of interaction is possible, dosn't that add a whole extra layer of possibilities?
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: but some call the time the 4 th dimension
[13:35] Qwark Allen: there are places in the universe where time just does not exist
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: but here is then a physical law i cant get
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: whats gravity........
[13:35] herman Bergson: Just be IN time for the next lecture and everything will be ok :-))
[13:35] Mick Nerido: time is the 4th dimention
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: when u approach the speed of light time stops
[13:35] Rayne Queller: the only way we can conclude this things is if we equate all unknowns as being the same.
[13:35] Qwark Allen: we don`t understand gravity
[13:35] Qwark Allen: no one knows what it is
[13:36] Rayne Queller: as if you and i both have closed boxes, mine is unknown and yours is unknown, thus they must contain the same thing
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: how can that be?
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and it has been proven that clocks on high speed jets go slower than the clocks on the ground
[13:36] Alaya Kumaki: in fact i am thinking that the possibility of an unknown laederships, invisible was much more rrelated to the time of navigation and d eportation of people in foreign land, and having got a message that they will return andtake care of the colonies... a material promises , nothing supernatural, but the later ''phone game distortion '' made it mythologic rather than historic...
[13:36] herman Bergson: the beetle in the box...:-)
[13:36] Rayne Queller: That is a fallacy
[13:36] Qwark Allen: in a black hole there is no time
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: really strange if time is just a measuring value and not a force that can be affected
[13:36] Qwark Allen: time in earth is different at ground or at 360 km
[13:37] Qwark Allen: that is why the gps are daily sinchronized
[13:37] Rayne Queller: mind is "suposedly unknown" and so I postulate this notion of "Spirit" than is also unknown and God is defined as unknown. Thus Mind is spirit is God.
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: because the speed can impossibly affect the mechanics in the clock
[13:37] Rayne Queller: that is the fallacy I see.
[13:37] Qwark Allen: maybe it`s gravity
[13:37] herman Bergson: Let us return to the mind...the inventor of time :-)
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: or the electronics
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: soory for the lenght herman, i forgot,,,, not being here often recently
[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: i will stick 2 one line
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: also why cant anything go beyond the speed of light?
[13:37] herman Bergson smiles at Alaya
[13:37] Qwark Allen: where the gravity field is more intense , seems to work faster the time
[13:37] Mick Nerido: what we are doing here with our minds...is the question
[13:38] RF Axel: Is the brain during life something from which the mind develops?
[13:38] Qwark Allen: we are talking about materialism
[13:38] herman Bergson: THAT RF is the quintessential question here....
[13:38] Qwark Allen: seems mind doesn't fit there
[13:38] druth Vlodovic: mind is an effect of material processes
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: and why not qwuark:?
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: reativity theory is the only physical law i cant grasp but u see it clearly when u watch the LHC in action
[13:39] RF Axel: New born babies don't seem to have much of a mind...
[13:39] Qwark Allen: because you can`t measure it
[13:39] herman Bergson: I still think that John Searle showed the best interpretation of the problem
[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: so the time, waiting, for the colonies, the expectation,,,, can be create all the time,,, but the end , is not alwyas fully controlled
[13:39] herman Bergson: I'll discuss that definitely in a special lecture
[13:39] herman Bergson: No RF they haven't…..
[13:39] RF Axel: What shape might you consider a mind to be, if that is a reasonable/sensible question?
[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: rf..not only new born babies
[13:40] Alaya Kumaki: we don't controlled the outcome, but we can modulate our expectation
[13:40] herman Bergson: Actually that is only a reasonable question when the mind spacial extension has....
[13:40] Mick Nerido: I think our brains evolved to the degree they did because the best problem solvers survived and passd on that trait
[13:41] herman Bergson: That is....when the mind is a material thing
[13:41] Rayne Queller: what exactly is a non-material thing?
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: forces ex
[13:41] herman Bergson: That does not exist...a non material thing.....
[13:41] Rayne Queller: and how exactly does a non-material thing account for the mind, in ways that the material brain does not?
[13:42] herman Bergson: a think is by definition something material....an object...
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: electromagnetic energy like light is not matter
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: have no mass
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: energy is not matter
[13:42] Rayne Queller: right, well then if a non-material thing does not exist, then mind is brain
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: energy
[13:42] herman Bergson: so the expression non-material thing is a contradiction in itself
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: energy is a field
[13:42] Alaya Kumaki: we never could track an idea in the brain so far,, is a thought material??
[13:42] Rayne Queller: Electromagnetic force is a property of matter
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes but it isnt matter in itself
[13:42] herman Bergson: well...we have particles and we have waves
[13:42] RF Axel: Now, if you throw in the Simulation Hypothesis, then an external physical reality (where minds are real) could be simulating ours, and, those mind controlling simulated bodies?
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: but a property yes
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: matter emit energy
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: we can expand the definition of "material" to include anything we can explain using mathematics
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: well said druth
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: than i accept the materiality, aspect of electromagnetism, but we cannot track ideas, down,,, witout somespecial apparatus, even atoms,, and even atoms,, are we sure of the apparatus, if ours cannot be fully faitfull to what is??
[13:43] Rayne Queller: the roundness of a ball is not the ball? I don't see how a property is not the thing which that property is attributed to
[13:43] Rayne Queller: there is no roundness without the ball.
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: if our minds exist outside our bodies then how can changes to our bodies affect our minds?
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: th = natures language
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: th is a bit trickier cause everything as know can be described with mathematics
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: that why u can cerate everything with computers
[13:44] herman Bergson: Chalmers even suggested to bring in consciousness in the equation
[13:44] Rayne Queller: If minds exist outside the body, then of what are they composed?
[13:44] Mick Nerido: The lanquage we are using is a mind construct
[13:44] Rayne Queller: if mind is an EMF feild, then we should detect it
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: computers use math to simulate just everything , sound pictures ect
[13:44] Alaya Kumaki: if we seee atoms , we can track down ideas,,, one day....
[13:45] herman Bergson: Indeed Ryane
[13:45] RF Axel: The language we are using is a mutual agreement, to attempt to convey meaning. :)
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: well u can measure brain waves
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: though control os possible with spec equipment
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: thought
[13:45] Alaya Kumaki: its a mutuall agreement, as tool done to moove object buy our brain waves only, and its working
[13:45] herman Bergson: Francis Crick even suggests that the 40mHz frequency is what makes the mind in the brain
[13:46] RF Axel: Messing up people's brains, hence minds, with magnetic fields, for example?
[13:46] Rayne Queller: where one creates an imprint on the other
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: right on the problem mick. here we use words .a mind construct...
[13:46] Rayne Queller: computers can only model sound and images with "math" because states of semi-conducter chips are directy linked to speaker vibrations and computer monitors.
[13:46] Rayne Queller: math in and of itself does not contain information about sound or pictures
[13:46] Mick Nerido: I saw brain auras while on acid lol
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yes its just switches
[13:46] herman Bergson: We can influence the brain with electricity yes
[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: but than its still to objectified,, in my sense , the subjective part (said as this is still an object) is a bias, and language to form what is, dialectically is also bias
[13:46] Qwark Allen: not really rayne
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: and evberyone uses it the way he thinks it could be used ..but words are communication tools..
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: it does if u make binary algorithms for how to represent a sound wave with numbers
[13:47] Qwark Allen: it`s cause of math that we can share sound and pics here
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: thats how all digital audio work
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: words are just symbols with no meaning until we interpret them
[13:47] Rayne Queller: we sent a record into space, if the aliens don't have a human record player, they will not be able to decode what is on it
[13:47] RF Axel: I sometimes see auras when very tired - is that just my visual system getting confused?
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: no druth..until we agree on their meaning
[13:48] herman Bergson: I would say so RF :-)
[13:48] druth Vlodovic: meaning I can't tell you anything you don't already know :)
[13:48] Qwark Allen: if they have inteligence will be a question of time to know how to reproduce it
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yes thats true
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: u need the data and then the correct algorithms and eqipment for coreectly trancfer it to menaingful information
[13:48] Rayne Queller: since the record is more directly mechanical, they may be able to build a player, but they would not know how to decode an MP4
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: until then its just code of binary numbers
[13:49] Qwark Allen: why not?
[13:49] herman Bergson: I suggest we discuss our own mind instead of the mind of an alien we dont know :-)
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: meaningful ? bejii? or whewre one can agree ?
[13:49] Qwark Allen paid you L$100.
[13:49] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Qwark Allen donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:49] herman Bergson: We already have troubl eenough to understand that issue :-)
[13:50] Alaya Kumaki: the mutual codes is even not done on earth, anyways,,,we speak all sort of language , and cant understand each spiecies
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: thats also a thing
[13:50] Rayne Queller: because they don't know how it was created in the first place, they don't know what it's supposed to be, and they don't have computer monitors or the micro-processors than convert the codex into images and sounds
[13:50] Alaya Kumaki: even not one another with one single code
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: for ex i cant understand chinese
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: "Dolphins are intelligent, after only a few weeks of captivity they are able to train people to stand beside the pool and throw them fish."
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: thats true rayneö
[13:50] Qwark Allen: you are making to many assumptions
[13:51] RF Axel: I understand there are some serious attempts going on to negotiate a workable language with dophins...
[13:51] Rayne Queller: the same reason that you can't plug an MP4 into a Graphing calculator and see the movie play
[13:51] Alaya Kumaki: ah, this is the question , what creats everything and what it the manuel of instruction to repair the mess we did
[13:51] herman Bergson: They have tried that with chimpanses....RF....
[13:51] Qwark Allen: wrong example
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ucan say like this, first the machine must be made to interpret the data and then our minds must in turn be correctly "programmed to make use of it
[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: smile..there should be more attempts to find a workable language between humans:)
[13:52] herman Bergson: But their brain is just lacking the wireing we have...
[13:52] Rayne Queller: alien technology would very likely be built on a whole different system of drivers and tranlations, codes etc
[13:52] herman Bergson: They have tried that to BALDUR....
[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: our mind interprete the dat, wrongly ,not knowing what is missing into ourself to get the full picture, the question is: how can we create a machine that does it, than...???
[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: failed so far:)
[13:52] Qwark Allen: in fact the most sophisticated language is the whales one
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: this is the danger of believing in the non-material "the mess we made" is no mess, just an alteration of circumstance, we will never be judged on it, but we do need to adapt to the new circumstances we have created
[13:53] Mick Nerido: The world we build is a reflection of our minds
[13:53] RF Axel: Some birds seem to have language capabilities not completely dissimilar to humans...
[13:53] herman Bergson: Hold on.....!!!
[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: judge druth' who's the judge?
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes but they don't understand what they say
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: they just try to imitate it
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: parrots and beostars ex
[13:53] herman Bergson: Here we are talkign about the concept of LANGUAGE....as is we have a well defined concept here now...
[13:53] Qwark Allen: they do bejita
[13:53] Qwark Allen: saw one that knows color, shape, number
[13:53] Qwark Allen: was amazing
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: a beostar for ex can sound indistinguisly alike a car engine for ex
[13:53] herman Bergson: I suggest to drop this discussion :-)
[13:54] Qwark Allen: got to go
[13:54] Alaya Kumaki: than i guess we have only lost, how,, and we aren't missing anything in our brain to find out,,,,
[13:54] Qwark Allen: see you thursdays
[13:54] herman Bergson: Leads to nowhere...and can go on for hours....
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: cu
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: Q
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation :-)
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:54] Qwark Allen: interesting as ever
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:54] Qwark Allen: you welcome
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed .....
[13:54] druth Vlodovic: ty herman
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: once again interesting discussion
[13:54] RF Axel: What are the properties of mind, that you suspect brain can't provide?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: was misssing it
[13:54] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:55] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman and everyone here
[13:55] RF Axel: Thanks for discussion.
[13:55] Alaya Kumaki: it was rich today,, we would need too chat room for that talk....
[13:55] herman Bergson: ooops RF ....that is a complex question......
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes my keyboard is glowing now

331: The Mind and some Qualia

Although a lot of scientists can be regarded as materialists in one way or another, dualism has still its defenders.

Their main point is that there is more when it comes to the mind or consciousness than just matter.This more is at least of a non-physical nature.

To proof this, we get the next argument. imagine a future scientist who was deaf from birth, but who has acquired a perfect scientific understanding of how hearing operates in others.

This scientist may have been born stone deaf, but becomes the world's greatest expert on the machinery of hearing:

he knows everything that there is to know within the range of the physical and behavioral sciences about hearing.

Now suppose that they succeed to restore his ability to hear. The man knows every detail of the process of hearing and yet he learns something new:

It is suggested that he will then learn something he did not know before, which can be expressed as what it is like to hear, or the qualitative or phenomenal nature of sound.

Nowhere in the physical or material process of hearing you find that private experience of what it is like to hear.

Thence it is claimed that conscious experience involves non-physical properties.

It rests on the idea that someone who has complete physical knowledge about another conscious being might yet lack knowledge about how it feels to have the experiences of that being.

This qualitative nature of our experiences from a subjective perspective is called the quale, most of the time discussed in plural: qualia.

If two brains perform exactly the same process: we both see something red, for instance, then the extra, which can not be deduced from the physical process, is the fact that it is MY experience and YOUR experience.

Although the processes may be identical there yet is something in the mind added, namely, the qualitative features of "what it is like" FOR ME to experience the color red.

It may sound to you as highly technical philosophical bickering, but the basic idea is that a 100% materialistic explanation of our consciousness is not possible. There is more.

Thus we must conclude that there are in our world at least two different properties: physical and non-physical.

The qualia issue has led to complex debates and argumentations since the famous article by Thomas Nagel "What is it like to be a bat?" from 1974.

The debate rages still on, but is till now controversial and inconclusive. Therefore it is not yet a refutation of our attempt to come to a materialistic interpretation of the mind.

We have to find an explanation of the subjectivity of the mind in a physicalistic sense. And there is something else…..

Our mind, our thoughts are always ABOUT" something. Mental states seem to have causal powers, but they also possess the mysterious property of intentionality

— being about other things — including things like Zeus and the square root of minus one, which do not exist.

Physical objects and processes lack this intentionality - this aboutness - How are we going to explain that…..perhaps in the next lecture.



The Discussion

[13:15] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)
[13:16] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark....go ahead..
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: are those avatars real here?
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: do they feel ?
[13:16] Kyra Neutron: do they exist in the universe?
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: this s a thing O wonder about sometime
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: let me finish bejiita...
[13:17] Mick Nerido: The deaf scientist would not understand what he hears it has to be "learned"
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: if me and my riend both feel happy do we feel the same
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: do we have the same experience
[13:17] Bejiita Imako: the reaction however is the same
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: id care what you experience :)
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: simple que
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: simple answer
[13:17] Kyra Neutron: do the avatars exist here
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: ?
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: so that make me think that we also must feel in a similar way
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: yawns...and leaves the scene to the prima donna
[13:18] herman Bergson: If you mean an identical experience Bejiita...the answer is no...
[13:18] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): kyra avatars exist in our minds here and there
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: ty gemma!
[13:18] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): an avatar is like a mask
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: interesting question indeed
[13:18] Sousinne Ceriano: The avatars have no mind, no brain, no existence beyond their connection to the person behind them, and the image as an in-world interface.
[13:18] ShinKenDo: I THINK SO IAM... I EXPERIENCE SO I FEEL
[13:18] Kyra Neutron: so is that mean..somehow..those avatars are real in a way?
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: for example if we think something is fun we laugh but does it feel the same for all
[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:19] Doodus Moose: Kyra - no, they're simply puppets
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, they are a form of communication, like someone talking.
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: that it feels good is for sure but similar
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: h
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: but yet..this is a cybernetic environment…
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Communication exists,.
[13:19] herman Bergson: It is a bit odd to suppose that avatars have a life and a mind....
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: we are cybernetic...
[13:19] Kyra Neutron: just like the "square root of minus one".
[13:19] Alaya Kumaki: i am not sure the the physics laws exposed the matter as lacking of intentionality, there, if i think about permissivity and permeability phenomenons, , but i don't recall who brought that,,,
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Not quite, eh?
[13:19] herman Bergson: Avatars…like a viewer are only tools
[13:19] Mick Nerido: The AV is a puppet yes
[13:20] Kyra Neutron: see the point herman...
[13:20] herman Bergson: created by and for us to communicate
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: the avatar is just a way to connect but since its a real person behind it the avatar will transfer our feelings rl
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: thats how I see it
[13:20] Sousinne Ceriano: Unless the person behind it is AFK.
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:20] herman Bergson: In that sense they don't differ from a hammer or a vacuum cleaner
[13:20] Kyra Neutron: shakes head..
[13:20] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:20] Doodus Moose: Bejiita - communicate minus the body language and subtilities of human expression
[13:20] Alaya Kumaki: Permittivity is determined by the ability of a material to polarize in response to the field, and thereby reduce the total electric field inside the material. Thus, permittivity relates to a material's ability to transmit (or "permit") an electric field.
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: ok..so if you any of you stand up when i say i will fuck you little bejita...
[13:21] Alaya Kumaki: i saw that the first time as a door to realize that matter isn't inanimate from intentionality
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: nothing...just a vacuum cleaner right?
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:21] Kyra Neutron: gigles
[13:21] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano: Yes, nothing.
[13:21] ShinKenDo: well in here we get something like a body language
[13:22] Doodus Moose: Shin- we're all in the same position :-)
[13:22] ShinKenDo: we somehow transform our ego int this puppet and make it feel
[13:22] ShinKenDo: so
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: alaya, I'm not sure the ability to affect things implies intentionality
[13:22] ShinKenDo: this here is a bridge
[13:22] Ciska Riverstone: other way round Shin?
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: its not the affecting, it's the permit...is an intention
[13:22] herman Bergson: We just use this means to communicate with eachother
[13:22] Kyra Neutron: the thing is
[13:22] Alaya Kumaki: the permisivity is an intention,
[13:22] Sousinne Ceriano: I find this part of the dualist discourse rather tiring, merely an attempt to allow the theist faith to survive in an area where science has not yet set up its theories.
[13:22] Kyra Neutron: what you say VACUUM CLEANER
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: is your identity
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: yourself
[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: in my view and the myth that matter is without it, is for me promitive
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: your poor existance
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: yes, and to get the avatar to transfer our feelings require that the operator pushes the right buttins sort of
[13:23] herman Bergson: yes...only vacuum cleaners dont communicate...they have another function:-)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: or nothing wil happen
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sl is a comunication tool that do what we tell it to do just like any machine
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: i am truly sorry bejita
[13:23] Sousinne Ceriano: And beside, vacuum cleaners are loud, disgusting things.
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: but a moderate
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: person
[13:23] herman Bergson: But I think we are drifing away from the actual subject of today :-)
[13:23] Kyra Neutron: is lack of controlling its avatar
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: as a robotic handle
[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: i am talking about the matter that isn't tranformed by human,,,,, and dead
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): was waiting for that
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: you are just good as your poor ego
[13:24] Kyra Neutron: in that ava
[13:24] ShinKenDo: so 2 avas sits on a bench and wach a digital sunset.. dont we feel something in this scene?
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): trying to recall the point of the lecture
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: You feel it. The avatar doesn't.
[13:24] druth Vlodovic: ok, what do you mean by permissivity? the ability of a thing to exist within a certain environment?
[13:24] herman Bergson: The issue of today is that experiences may seem identical in a material way in two different persons...
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: sous...maybe you shall breath air more..and look at walls less?
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: the operator behind the machi does
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: machine
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: we live here...
[13:25] herman Bergson: but each person adds his subjectivity to it....
[13:25] herman Bergson: His "what is it like for me to hear…"
[13:25] ShinKenDo: we even say .. we are home...
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: if counsciousness merge from matter,,the exprience of the matter in term of counsciousness is,,, not something we can experiment,,,, as our
[13:25] herman Bergson: this means that in fact these mental states are NOT identical...
[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: yes , we do experiment it
[13:25] Kyra Neutron: :) yesh
[13:26] Kyra Neutron: experiment
[13:26] druth Vlodovic: the subjectivity is often the result of differences in their senses (material) or previous experience (the mind conditioned to react differently to stimuli)
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: speaking about vacuum cleaners i really need to clean up this place tomorrowu usually do that fridays
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: but had a lot of friends here before so place is a bit extra messy now
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: heheh
[13:26] herman Bergson: This is a problem we'll have to deal with in further lectures...
[13:26] Doodus Moose: Professor - in stress school we called it "Actions, Beliefs & Consequences"
[13:26] Alaya Kumaki: lol
[13:26] Kyra Neutron: like giving a drug to the monkey..and measure the body temperature?
[13:26] Mick Nerido: Is like lanquage if you don't understand it it is juat noise
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: sort of
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: weird..i never herad vacuum cleaners are capable of making friends :)
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: chinese for ex i cant make anything but strange sounds out from
[13:27] Doodus Moose: 2 people see the same action, they react from their individual life experience, then take separate consequences
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: no words
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: just sounds
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: lamp and fridge friends?
[13:27] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:27] Mick Nerido: We all get the same sound waves but our minds interpit them differently
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its intresting that you brought that today herman, caus e yesterday i found a document on dennnets intentionality
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: didnt read it , only one chapter, yet
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: a useful tool simply
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Dennett is related to this subject too...
[13:28] herman Bergson: Chalmers even more....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the vaccum cleaner is my friend when it make cleanup easy and nice here around
[13:28] herman Bergson: If I am not mistaken...
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: And yet, there is little reason to assume that people feel, or see, different things when given identical stimuli.
[13:28] Kyra Neutron: wrong? the vacuum cleaner is "bejiita"
[13:28] herman Bergson: Chalmers even took it so far, that he suggested that our idea of reality isn't correct...
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: When someone is angry, they act the same way.
[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: the comparative was made between dennets and fodor
[13:28] Doodus Moose: Sou - a friend of mine got in a bad auto accident, and responds to auto brake lights _very_ differently than the most of us
[13:29] herman Bergson: Consciousness should be a real part of it too...
[13:29] Kyra Neutron: yes..primitive feelings..
[13:29] druth Vlodovic: if they react differently then we can assume the experience is different, for instance, one person smelling mature might cover his nose and another will ignore the smell
[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: yes the reality , concept is not correct, i also think that,,
[13:29] ShinKenDo: so now i know a avatar fairly well ... can determine if she is in a good or bad mood.... i learnd to read her usage of certain attachments.. which she choose un concourse… and i .. i behave in a way.. chose emoticons or as that fits my mood... so we "know each other" theoreticaly.. llike the deaf man who know all about hearing... so when i meat the person behind the ava ... will i sitt like this? or use a coat and a goggle on my neck? PERHAPS because ... its now a part of me.. yesterday i tried a new skin .. and shape... this was horrible i could not recognise my selfe
[13:29] herman Bergson: almost like a Cartesian substance
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: Different from what you would respond like if you had been through the same accident?
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: hmm that we react to different things is for sure
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: probably, any experience is largely determined by the experiencer
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: well..this is cause we identify "selves" via forms
[13:30] herman Bergson: To say that A and B are identical means according to Leibniz his principle
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: for ex i love olives but a friend of me hates them
[13:30] herman Bergson: that every true statement of A is a true statement of B
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: as another likes to identify via "vacuum cleaner"
[13:30] Kyra Neutron: :)
[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: the experience my hot be similar, they subjectivity might not be
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:31] herman Bergson: and when subjectivity is added to our concept of consciousness....this creates a problem....
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: this also weird..to define..hate and love..
[13:31] Kyra Neutron: aren't they same?
[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: well form the objectivation aspect and a subject object,,its a problem
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: That there is a filter of biology and previous experiences between us and the stimulus doesn't mean our responses aren't the same.
[13:31] herman Bergson: the material origine may look identical...we all have brains....
[13:31] druth Vlodovic: subjectivity might just be due to the complexity of the system
[13:32] herman Bergson: but we all have only OUR own brain
[13:32] Kyra Neutron: and where is it?
[13:32] Florencio Flores: hi qwark
[13:32] herman Bergson: In that sense no two brains are alike
[13:32] Mick Nerido: I like abstract expressionism you may hate it
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hi Qwark
[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: since the subject brain,,is matter, where is the subjectivity if not in the matter itself
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes Alaya...THAT is the quintessential question....
[13:33] Florencio Flores: that was deeper alaya
[13:33] Qwark Allen: hello, finally i arrive in +/- time
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: )
[13:33] Doodus Moose: Alaya steers the boat back on course :-)
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: It is exactly there, in the matter itself.
[13:33] herman Bergson: therefore qualia are discussed and some even still claim that the mind has non-physical qualities
[13:33] Mick Nerido: Matter is mind?
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: .....
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Mind is matter. Everything is.
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: an easier question
[13:33] Kyra Neutron: what is non-physic
[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: i think that the mind has both quality
[13:34] herman Bergson: If it was that simple that matter generates the mind....
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: not one or the other, in exclusion relation
[13:34] druth Vlodovic: people like to claim that there are non-material aspects of the brain because they like to believe in souls, and continuity after death
[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: as waves and particles
[13:34] herman Bergson: matter is deterministic in its causality
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: energy
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: matter or not?
[13:34] ShinKenDo: i like to get the word Brain in contact with the word membrane in quantum physics...... strings who vibrate .. and form the matter are like single notes in a opera .. and brains are melodys maid of those notes... somehow selfconscious..
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: No. it is not, professor.
[13:34] Kyra Neutron: ....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: matter=energy
[13:34] herman Bergson: and we believe that we are NOT deterministic in our mind.....that we have a free will for instance
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: pure energy
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: the higgs boson is supposed to be the difference between what is matter and what is energy
[13:35] ShinKenDo: its both at the same time
[13:35] Kyra Neutron: energy vibrates and the frequency defines the matter..
[13:35] ShinKenDo: yes
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: light have no mass but other particles have mass = matter
[13:35] herman Bergson: We'll gonna discuss all this kind of questions in coming lectures
[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: i believe in a certain freedom of the will but not a fukl one
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: interesting theory
[13:35] ShinKenDo: and matter defines the range of frequency
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: This is only a problem if you either only look at the macro scale or only the micro scale.
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: is very different indeed
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: But the brain is not only one or the other. The mid-level structure there MEANS something.
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: it comes from the idea that if we are deterministic then we are just machines, an un necessary connection to my mind
[13:36] Kyra Neutron: what a freak idea..
[13:36] Alaya Kumaki: the mecanical perspective is a made up anyways
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes druth...
[13:36] Sousinne Ceriano: Certainly, there are limits to our free will.
[13:37] Kyra Neutron: if a human can be anything similar..it is only animal...
[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll discuss free will extensively ....
[13:37] Sousinne Ceriano: I can't spontaneously turn into a bottle of cola, for example, no matter how badly I want to.
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: we do not become less human just because all we are is in this world (however large it may be)
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: that is a religious fear
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: to be able to act we must have knowledge sort of analogous to programming for a computer but a computer can not really think
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nvm
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: you simply deny what you made of
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: it just calculates numbers without knowing what it actually really does
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: And yet, with the right structure, we would have a computer that thought.
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: a computer just se lot of on and off
[13:38] herman Bergson: true bejiita....
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: 1 and 0
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: nothing more
[13:38] Mick Nerido: We are al on computers now
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: because
[13:38] Kyra Neutron: we cant calculate
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and predict
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Mick and WE do the thinking, not the computer:-)
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: or generate
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: It is not a question of "consciousness magic". Structure equals function... and that does not invalidate free will.
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: as a 4 gb ramed computer can does
[13:39] ShinKenDo: so ... somehow in order to survive we had to separate us from others? well ... actually we cant 2 persons GROW as one... would bee a interesting experiment.. Twins.. 24/7 conectet via modern communication equipment... so each see and hear what the other is dooing... and if the one is kissing a girl ... would the other not feel something =?
[13:39] Mick Nerido: It is an extension of our minds
[13:39] druth Vlodovic: "nothing more" implies that what we are is insufficient, shameful in fact
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the computer can do things very fast BUT it need a human to tell it EXACTLY what to do
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: no
[13:39] Florencio Flores: bye everyone
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: then it does that and nothing more
[13:39] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:39] Florencio Flores: need to leave
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: cu fo
[13:39] Kyra Neutron: bye flore
[13:39] Florencio Flores: ☆*¨¨* ♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''* ♥:*¨¨*☆
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: flo
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:40] herman Bergson: Well a lot of ideas and remarks....
[13:40] Florencio Flores: bye bejiita, kyra and qwark and all
[13:40] ShinKenDo: bye florencio
[13:40] Alaya Kumaki: we can say that the pc, experiment ourself using it
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: it's similar to the argument as to why life "must" have a purpose, because without meaning it is meaningless, as though this is negative in some way
[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): confusion
[13:40] Mick Nerido: No Shinkendo
[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Florencio
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: computers are machines, they cant act on their own, unless a bug in the programming give the cpu wring instructions about what to do
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: can be really dangerous sometimes
[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: but we created that pseudo subjective pc
[13:41] Kyra Neutron: alaya traces good :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I would suggest.....let's think it all over .....
[13:42] herman Bergson: My head is a a bit spinning now :-)
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I will reread the blog
[13:42] herman Bergson: So I would thank you all for your participation again....
[13:42] ShinKenDo: this is a rather un informed speaking Bejiita.. new sciences have discovered that CHAOS can happen if a cycle is repeated enough.. in a perfectly fine computer environment wich causes the program evolve on its self
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and try to make sense of the whole discussion
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: thank you herman
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes gemma....me too :-)
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: really interesting this time
[13:42] Alaya Kumaki: lol
[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:42] ShinKenDo: we call it Gost in the shell
[13:42] Qwark Allen: i got here late no idea about the subject
[13:43] Doodus Moose: that's why i come here - to get my brain beat up.
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: bye gemma
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ehehhe
[13:43] Mick Nerido: Thanks everyone
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: there is not a whole one,,,, just a partial one, me think
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: a few good spins
[13:43] herman Bergson: haha Doodus :-)
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: aa about malicious computers, here is a really good example of computers wreaking havoc with disastrous result
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
[13:43] ShinKenDo: Thank you Herman
[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: thanx hermann - bye all
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:43] Kyra Neutron: not malicious only...
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:43] Alaya Kumaki: see yu next time herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: Bye Alaya :-)