skip to main |
skip to sidebar
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 physicalTwo: 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 mentalisticterms 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
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 :-)
Before digging into Dualism I have to deal with a question that came up in the discussion after my previous lecture. It boiled down to the question how a subjective mind / consciousness can obtain objective knowledge about the mind, because, isn't that a subjective something?let me begin with quoting John Searle: "Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity.Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objectivescience of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms."This may sound a bit complicated and I'll not explain it all in detail, but what is important in this matter is our common way of thinking in the dichotomy objective - subjective.Many philosophers and scientists think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness. For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.This is not correct and I'll show you why. As knowledge science is objective indeed. That means, a scientist can find the truth of a statement, which is independent of the observer."Herman Bergson is in RL 1.78m tall" and "Herman Bergson is a good philosopher". The first statement is objective knowledge. Anyone can put it to the test and proof the correctness.The second statement is subjective. There is no way of settling the truth or falsehood of it. I hope, you find at least one person who'd like to say "yes, that is true". Others may have reasons to say "That statement is false."We may call this epistemic objectivity and epistemic subjectivity, but we have to make another subjective - objective distinction.Pains and tickles, for example, have a subjective mode of existence. Nobody else can feel my headache, but me myself.But mountains, cars and houses have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence doesn't depend on any consciousness.Because this is about things and how they exist, we can call it the distinction between ontological objectivity and ontological subjectivity.Thence you can conclude, that it is very well possible to have objective knowledge (the epistemic level) of what exists only as my subjective mental states (the ontological level).Or to say it in Searle words:"There is no reason whatever why we cannot have an objective science of pain, even though pains only exist when they are felt by conscious agents. The ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain." In other words, science is by definition objective in the epistemological sense and consciousness is by definition subjective in the ontological sense and for that reason it is completely normal that there is scientific knowledge possible about consciousness.What I wanted to make clear is, that in the debate we must keep a sharp eye on the questions: "Is this statement objective / subjective knowledge?"and "is the existence of this fact depending on consciousness or independent of consciousness". This is the distinction between epistemic and ontological objectivity / subjectivity.I am sorry I had to put you through this rather technical philosophical stuff, but it is an important argument regarding possibility of a the science of consciousness.The Discussion[13:27] herman Bergson: this much about the ontological and epistemological objectivity...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: my skin has also epistemic history...but..it doesnt tell me..[13:28] herman Bergson: A bit philosophical hitech maybe...:-)[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and my bones..dont talk to me about their ontologic background also[13:28] Kyra Neutron: :O)[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..sure would be interesting to talk about your skin..later:9[13:28] Kyra Neutron: i just wanted to ask...[13:28] herman Bergson: of course not Kyra...[13:28] Kyra Neutron: who defines[13:28] Kyra Neutron: objective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: and[13:28] Kyra Neutron: subjective[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:29] herman Bergson: Because these are features of consciousness...and your bones as such aren't conscious[13:29] herman Bergson: Who defines objective and subjective...[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...quite simple...we do...not my cat for instance...[13:30] herman Bergson: It is rules we define to tell what is knowledge and what is not[13:30] Kyra Neutron: not knowledge[13:30] Kyra Neutron: object and subject..[13:30] herman Bergson waves at Elia[13:30] Elia Scribe: Hi Herman!![13:30] Kyra Neutron: is defined..by.."you"[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what is you?[13:31] herman Bergson: no no...not subject and object....has nothing to do with this[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you are an subjective thing[13:31] herman Bergson: no no....[13:31] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:31] herman Bergson: these definitions are intersubjective...[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we see through eyes..are[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we hear[13:31] Kyra Neutron: what we can think[13:31] Kyra Neutron: you ..me..him..[13:32] Kyra Neutron: are totally subjective[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she is right in one way but[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemological objective means that any one can establish the truth or falsity of a statement[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: she ignores the fact that she says "we"[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I see, hear, the same - now it is objective[13:32] Kyra Neutron: throws the shoe at baldur...[13:32] Kyra Neutron: i has to say it otherwise..you don't listen[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra...[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sticks out tongue[13:33] Mick Nerido: Without an observer is an event real?[13:33] herman Bergson: ontologically is subjective all what I hear you say ....MY hearing only....[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: objective is a result of common agreement -for example of the meaning of a word ..that is -becomes independent of the individual idea[13:33] herman Bergson: But the meaning of what you say...the epistemological content is NOT subjective...[13:34] Kyra Neutron: how can you define it?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: you are "subjective" ?[13:34] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:34] herman Bergson: I can repeat to someone else literally what you said and ask..is that true or false..[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: smile..we are social and communication dependent animals:9[13:35] Kyra Neutron: damit..you cant even prove that you exist :/[13:35] herman Bergson: If I hear you say "I have seen a martian"...ontologically it is subjective...[13:35] Doodus Moose: is just glad he's not being tested on this :-)[13:35] Kyra Neutron: or we...[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: if i pinch your ass you know you exist[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I can bite you and then you feel that I exist[13:35] Kyra Neutron: if i have "the" ass...[13:35] herman Bergson: But epistemologically I can put it to the test...[13:35] Evie1: glad it was not punch[13:36] Kyra Neutron: no..that only proves..i am dreaming all of "you"[13:36] Kyra Neutron: all the universe[13:36] herman Bergson: I can ask you to show me evidence...which is independent of the observer...[13:36] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:36] Kyra Neutron: and ...oh my...god gene...?[13:36] Kyra Neutron: nooooooo[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: smile ok if you are just immaterial you won't feelyour ass pinched..[13:36] Kyra Neutron: it is the god itself ![13:36] Kyra Neutron: haha ok ok..sorry herman[13:37] herman Bergson: Baldur..leave her ass alone..not in my class ! :-)[13:37] Mick Nerido: Her point of view is entirely subjective....nothing exists if Kyra doesn't[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: sorry but she does have a NICE ONE:9[13:37] herman Bergson: We'll get to that...sollipsime[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes...and as all of you...[13:37] herman Bergson: a logic consequence of the Cartesian view[13:38] Kyra Neutron: nothing exist..if you don't…[13:38] Kyra Neutron: so..next time..telling about "objective" remember it ;9[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: i thought todays class was about the "i"?[13:38] herman Bergson: nothing exist..if you don't…..this statement Kyra...[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry i must go[13:38] Elia Scribe: Kyra, this is at least in part an answer to your question: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Werner Karl Heisenberg[13:38] Mick Nerido: I think the world was here before me and will be here after I am gone[13:38] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty! herman & class - see u soon :-)[13:38] Kyra Neutron: mick[13:39] herman Bergson: IS just epistemic...not ontological...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: have you seen..world[13:39] Kyra Neutron: before "you"[13:39] Kyra Neutron: me didnt[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and i wont see world after me[13:39] Kyra Neutron: so..i am not flattering myself..to be part of the big clock...[13:40] herman Bergson: this is all about your subjective knowledge Kyra...[13:40] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[13:40] Kyra Neutron: as much as all of us[13:40] Kyra Neutron: has[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the scientists[13:40] Kyra Neutron: all the ones that try to "wolf"[13:40] herman Bergson: that doesnt have any effect on scientific knowledge of reality[13:40] Kyra Neutron: till you connect[13:40] Kyra Neutron: you are subjectvie[13:40] Mick Nerido: I see objective evidence of a previous existence of the world before I was here, History[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: but you agree you are part of something?[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: objectively?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: it is not my agree[13:41] Kyra Neutron: baldur..[13:41] Kyra Neutron: or knowledge[13:41] herman Bergson: sollipsime isnt refutable logically...[13:42] herman Bergson: even philosophically a waste of time[13:42] Kyra Neutron: oks herman[13:42] Kyra Neutron: but what you try to say[13:42] herman Bergson: betrand Russell once received a letter from a highly gifted mathematician....She wrote..I am a solipsist now...I wonder why you aren't[13:42] Kyra Neutron: or learn[13:42] Kyra Neutron: is already there[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: you don't agree..not bee part of something.. so how come you can participate in a discussion[13:42] Kyra Neutron: ..........[13:43] Kyra Neutron: he also had given a high blessing for "being nothing"[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: smile what is there is undergoing eternal change..[13:43] herman Bergson: Not sure what you mean Kyra....[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hmm[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hiçliğin türküsü[13:44] herman Bergson: Your point in one statement...regarding objective and subjective[13:44] Kyra Neutron: idk the english translation of it[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: right..[13:44] Kyra Neutron: opening for one of his statements :)[13:44] herman Bergson: whose statements?[13:44] Kyra Neutron: porphyre eglantine[13:44] herman Bergson: dont know the man/woman[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it is called ( russells book )[13:45] Mick Nerido: "Biocenterism" agrees with Kyra[13:45] Elia Scribe: The solipsist would seem to be lonely.[13:45] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): "song of nothingness"[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..for the rest of the group..can we let[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: herman finish his class and then we talk?[13:46] Kyra Neutron: the existentialist's crisis[13:46] Kyra Neutron: or sth like that..[13:46] herman Bergson: Well..here we deal with real arguments only..not with references to books or authors....[13:46] Kyra Neutron: yes..song of nothingness[13:46] Kyra Neutron: ty hakan..[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yw[13:46] Kyra Neutron: so the example..is not fitting[13:46] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): or "ballad of nonexixtence"[13:46] herman Bergson: If we would do that we also could refer to the bible any time[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: or i shall talk about kafka for the next half hour[13:47] Kyra Neutron: hahaha[13:47] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:47] Kyra Neutron: kafka[13:47] Kyra Neutron: and you has blessed time without ky[13:47] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:47] ĤĂĶĂŃ (hakan.mongrain): yep[13:47] herman Bergson: Not acceptable in a philosophical debate...[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: SMILE TY KYR[13:47] herman Bergson: I want arguments....[13:47] herman Bergson: Logical[13:48] herman Bergson: verifiable[13:48] Elia Scribe: Logical = Linguistic?[13:48] herman Bergson: and that is all[13:48] herman Bergson: no ELia..[13:48] Kyra Neutron: herman..this is my "logic"[13:48] Kyra Neutron: :/[13:48] herman Bergson: Just pure and simple logic..[13:49] herman Bergson: that something either true of false[13:49] herman Bergson: for instance[13:49] Kyra Neutron: lauging ...hidden :)[13:49] Elia Scribe: Pure and simple logic seems an ideal, perhaps not existent?[13:49] Kyra Neutron: oks...true or false[13:49] Elia Scribe: Ahh.[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is like binary ...[13:49] herman Bergson: oh yes..you live by it every day elia..[13:49] Kyra Neutron: but..now we have this ;[13:49] Kyra Neutron: it is true + and+ false[13:50] Elia Scribe: In what sense do you mean that Herman?[13:50] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): maybe for me it is true and for you it is false[13:50] Evie1: sorry rl calls bye all[13:50] herman Bergson: ok kyra...you go outside..and you say..look it is raining and not raining at the same time[13:50] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:51] herman Bergson: Just as I said Elia...[13:51] Kyra Neutron: can you define where i am ?[13:51] Kyra Neutron: i simply cant...[13:51] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): here in sl[13:51] BALDUR Joubert: KYRA..please ..i'm sure herman will be ready to dicuss those questions after class on in the diswcussion for hours.. but think of the others..simple minded people like me..who want to get basics..[13:51] herman Bergson: when you go outside and you observe that is is not raining you will not say it is raining[13:51] Kyra Neutron: ok ok ....[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I sorry..[13:52] Rodney Handrick: I'm Sorry! guys I have to go rl stuff[13:52] herman Bergson: well Baldur..that basics of today are these[13:52] Elia Scribe: Well there is interaction with the world. Is this a part of the logic I do every day?[13:52] herman Bergson: consciousness is a subjective matter....[13:52] Kyra Neutron: yes....ty at last![13:52] herman Bergson: there is only your conscious....[13:53] herman Bergson: question is...[13:53] herman Bergson: tho it is a subjective matter...[13:53] Kyra Neutron: yes you can[13:53] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you can define what consciousness is: and then it is objective[13:53] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of your subjective consciousness[13:53] Kyra Neutron: my answer was for herman..[13:53] herman Bergson: We leave that out for the moment Siggi…plaza[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: if you agree that all organic life is an individal entity..[13:54] Kyra Neutron: no[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: makes may be easier to understand[13:54] herman Bergson: your subjective conscious is subjective in an ontological sense...[13:55] herman Bergson: but when you smash your thumb with a hammer I can ask you...does it hurt???[13:55] herman Bergson: I guess you will say ..yes...[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: kyra might love it[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:55] Kyra Neutron: yes[13:55] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: she feels she exists:)[13:55] herman Bergson: this means...epistemically...as knowledge I can verify the statement..Baldur's thumb hurt...[13:56] herman Bergson: I gather evidence...[13:56] herman Bergson: You are screaming....[13:56] Kyra Neutron: 100% right baldur[13:56] herman Bergson: I could have a brainscan...showing C fibres firing...[13:56] herman Bergson: I can see the blood...[13:56] herman Bergson: and so on....[13:56] BALDUR Joubert: sure Kyra bleeds?[13:57] Kyra Neutron: periodicly yes[13:57] herman Bergson: I have soon hundreds of cases like that...and all said….revealing their subjecive consciousness with the words.....IT HURTS![13:57] Kyra Neutron: so i needs hammer[13:57] Kyra Neutron: but as part of...no[13:57] herman Bergson: I cant feel the pain....but I CAN have objective knowledge about it....[13:57] Kyra Neutron: (lag)[13:58] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:58] herman Bergson: therefore I give you morphine :-)[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: WELL IF I OBSERVE IT IT WOULD bew a subjectiv e observation.. smile which doenbs't hurt me[13:58] Kyra Neutron: you cant have objective knowledge[13:58] Kyra Neutron: never ever ever[13:58] Kyra Neutron: "you"[13:58] Kyra Neutron: is subjective[13:58] herman Bergson: oh yes Kyra....[13:58] BALDUR Joubert: right kyra..but you share your emotion with others..so they won't do it again..[13:58] Kyra Neutron: it is your chemical compound[13:59] Mick Nerido: If a tree falls and no one hears it did it make a sound?[13:59] herman Bergson: When I have a big rock....and I see it fall on you..you will be crushed....[13:59] Kyra Neutron: your electric connections[13:59] BALDUR Joubert: which means ..your brain is in connection with your ewnvironment[13:59] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:59] Kyra Neutron: coz..you raised by that knowledge[13:59] Kyra Neutron: you say you will be crushed[13:59] Kyra Neutron: so my mother has raised by that knowledge[13:59] herman Bergson: the observations is completely independent of my consciousness...[13:59] herman Bergson: Every person will find that splash of blood and bones under that rock[14:00] Kyra Neutron: and my grandson..will be..[14:00] Kyra Neutron: if it doesnt..raised by that[14:00] Kyra Neutron: how dare you can say..it will be crushed?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will lift it[14:00] Kyra Neutron: he will divide it into small pieces[14:00] Kyra Neutron: there wont be any rock at all[14:00] Kyra Neutron: or[14:00] Elia Scribe: Herman, isn't this practical truth? What the Buddhists call conventional reality?[14:00] Kyra Neutron: belive is everything[14:01] Mick Nerido: I must leave, thanks for the spirited discussion[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: kyra.. human evlution is lagregely dependent on the communication possibilities..which include abstacts..l[14:01] Kyra Neutron: o.O,[14:01] herman Bergson: I agree Mick…this discussion can go on for ages :-)[14:01] Kyra Neutron: mick pls ..i am sorry for opening my frog mouth .7[14:01] herman Bergson: No ..you have the right to do that Kyra..like everyone here[14:02] Elia Scribe: Behind that AV you are a frog?[14:02] Doodus Moose: i'm heading for the wine cellar right after this....[14:02] herman Bergson: But your ideas about that falling rock are questionable[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): good night to all[14:02] Kyra Neutron: oh my...save some for us?[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: kyra..herman told us fromnthe beginning that philosophy is allaboitu asking questions[14:03] Kyra Neutron: baldur[14:03] herman Bergson: Good idea Doodus....I share that with you in an objective way:-)[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it may be...[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: smile finding the right questions is the quest:9[14:03] Kyra Neutron: it is not only the questions[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: not finding the answers :9[14:03] herman Bergson: Finding the wine cellar is now our next objective[14:04] herman Bergson: So..may I thank you all for this vivd debate....[14:04] herman Bergson: Thank you Kyra…we're not done yet ...give it time[14:04] Kyra Neutron: yes herman[14:04] Kyra Neutron: ty[14:04] Kyra Neutron: for[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
