363: The Brain as Computer

Every era seems to have an inclination to compare the brain with its latest technology. Leibniz (1646 - 1716) once compared the brain with the complex mechanics of a mill.

Later it was compared with the switchboard of a telephone system and of course, as I already mentioned in the previous lecture, Hilary Putnam was one of the philosophers inspired by the computer. So nowadays our brain has similar functionalities as a computer or visa versa.

Sience fiction LOVES to play with mind like computers. My favorite computer is Data from the Startrek series and of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger… sorry…The Terminator I mean….. fine piece of machinery.

But to clearly understand what a computer is or better, what a computer does, you have to learn two basic concepts.

You need to know what it means to talk about the syntactic and semantic properties of symbols.

Syntax is from Ancient Greek σύνταξις "arrangement" from σύν syn, "together", and τάξις táxis, "an ordering". Semantic is also from the Ancient Greek σημαντικός which means "significant" in which the word σημα means "sign".

Let us assume that our brain is among other things a symbol processing system. Now we make a distinction between basic symbols and complex symbols.

I will use English words as examples of basic symbols, and l will use English sentences as examples of complex symbols.

Thus "Plato" is a basic symbol whereas "Plato wrote the Politeia" is a complex symbol. The syntactic properties of a symbol are the properties which can be detected simply by examining the symbol in isolation.

Take the basic symbol "Plato". It consists of 5 letters in a certain arrangement. The typeface is Arial, say, 3 millimeter high, on your screen. It has a certain color.

What you can't find out from the symbol itself is that Plato is an ancient Greek philosopher, or that I was the person who typed this.

Let us call this syntactic properties of the basic symbol the symbol's shape, like we can see, that a certain complex symbol is a question, because of the shape it end: the question mark ???

So, that Plato was an ancient Greek philosopher is not a syntactic property of the basic symbol "Plato". This is called a semantic property.

Simply stated, semantic properties are properties connected with the meaning of a symbol. An important semantic property of a symbol is its reference.

An other important semantical property is the truth value of a symbol. Not all symbols have a truth value, however. "Plato" as such is neither true or false.

Yet used in a complex symbol it gets a truth value. For instance the complex symbols "Plato wrote the Politeia" and "Plato wrote the Bible" have truth value.

The complex symbol gets its truth value because it claims something about the world. In general, symbols have the semantic properties of truth or falsity if and only if they make a claim about the world.

Unlike the syntactic properties, the semantic properties cannot be detected by examining a symbol in isolation.

In order to discover the reference of the symbol "Plato", staring at the symbol won't reveal this to you, you need to look it up, for instance in Wikipedia.

There it is said, that "Plato" is a symbol that refers to an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote among other things the "Politeia".

These are the basic tools we need to answer the question: is the brain or the mind just like a computer. We'll look into that some more next week.



The Discussion

herman Bergson: thank you..
Farv Hallison: thank you..
herman Bergson: Did you understand the difference between syntactic and semantic properties?
Mick Nerido: Yes I think so...
Sybyle Perdide: nods
herman Bergson: It will be important to understand computationalism
herman Bergson: If you didn't get it all 100%..just reread the lecture in the blog...
herman Bergson: It is not so difficult to understand...
Bejiita Imako: think i got most of it at least „ã°
Mick Nerido: Syntactic is the individual description of a symbol, semantic is the emaning of a symbol in a context?
herman Bergson: you make use of it every day!
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i have to reread it
herman Bergson: Let me explain...
herman Bergson: as I said
herman Bergson: you use syntax and semantics every day
Lizzy Pleides: can you give another example Herman?
herman Bergson: first ..syntax...
herman Bergson: semantics....is what the sentence means
herman Bergson: is just the order of the words in a sentence
herman Bergson: chat lag...:-(
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): like semantic is the context,? but what about semiotic?
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): do syntax again
Sybyle Perdide: semiotic is what the symbol stands for alone
Sybyle Perdide: without context
herman Bergson: syntax is is just the order of the words in a sentence
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): semantics is the meaning then
herman Bergson: yes....
Bejiita Imako: to make a working understandable sentence
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and can be different in some cases
herman Bergson: what the sentence...state of affairs the sentence refers to
Mick Nerido: Syntax= verb, noun ect.?
herman Bergson: semiotics is a different chapter
herman Bergson: yes MICK...EXACTLY!
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): semiotic is the symbols , from a larger context than the sentence s semantic
Bejiita Imako: just like syntax error in a computer program mean that the code you have typed is not correct corresponding to the language you use
Bejiita Imako: for example you cant use visual basic syntax to program in c and vice versa
herman Bergson: right Bejiita1
herman Bergson: !
Bejiita Imako: the computer don't understand the syntax
Bejiita Imako: just like i cant understand arabic
herman Bergson: on the contrary Bejiita..it only understands syntax :-)
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it does not understand the semantics
Sybyle Perdide: isn't the sytax something, we teach the pc?
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): but without semiotic, herman, the meaning, cannot be given,, out of the syntax , the word will not mean anything, but out of the social and economic context , the word don't mean anything either
herman Bergson: Well about arabic..Bejiita ..neither you or I do understand the syntax
herman Bergson: nor the semantics
Bejiita Imako: nope
herman Bergson: it is just a bunch of signs on paper....
herman Bergson: paper
Bejiita Imako: also the japanese language have another order of the words, for example the surname come before your first name
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): computer dont understand syntax?
Farv Hallison: not even the lexicography.
Bejiita Imako: and the verb comes last in the sentence
Mick Nerido: Chinese is pictographs
herman Bergson: as I saud...computers are masters in understanding syntax
herman Bergson: I do understand japanese to soem extend...
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): oh, see bejiita
herman Bergson: can read it..
Bejiita Imako: if i for example say i do this, in japanese you say sort of
Bejiita Imako: i this do
herman Bergson: yes
herman Bergson: hai, so shimasu..^_^
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): which makes sense in a way
Bejiita Imako: do is desu in japanese and desu is always last word in the sentence
Bejiita Imako: not like swedish or english
Bejiita Imako: however german is like that as well
herman Bergson: only when it is about people Bejiita...
herman Bergson: about things it is arimasu
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): konban wa
Mick Nerido: The rules of lanquage are syntax
herman Bergson: Ogenki desu ka :-)
Bejiita Imako: yes
herman Bergson: Yes Mick....indeed
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hi
Bejiita Imako: „ã°
herman Bergson: How to arrange the words in a sentence in such a way that it gets semantic content
Mick Nerido: However irregular lol
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): its like the dance footsteps
Lizzy Pleides: every languige has own rules
Sybyle Perdide: this rules are the syntax
Sybyle Perdide: how to construct
Mick Nerido: that's why tranlation is an art not a science
herman Bergson: I speak Japanese...bla bla bla ..Beertje...lol
herman Bergson: Watashi wa Nihon go wo ....
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): well mixing many language toghether is possible
Bejiita Imako: aaa
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): schud maar in mijn pet...
Farv Hallison: Can a computer understand ART?
Lizzy Pleides: we can't either sometimes
Sybyle Perdide: a pc hasn't enough knowledge of semiotic to do so
Sybyle Perdide: : 9
herman Bergson: Oh I can not speak Japanese you said Beertje
Bejiita Imako: hmm will be hard
Sybyle Perdide: laughs, Lizzy
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): japanese is making sense, in the voice tone no?
Mick Nerido: A computer can find ART but not make it
Sybyle Perdide: how can he find, Mick?
Bejiita Imako: a computer cant see the actual picture cause its digital so sees a string of binar math only while we see stuff analog directly interpreting the picture
Elle (ellenilli.lavendel) is Offline
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes Herman..i don't...
herman Bergson: No Mick...a computer cannot find art...
Sybyle Perdide: nods
Sybyle Perdide: oh
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): for the computer to find the menaing, maybe we will have to record the voice tonality, and give him a tonality decoder
Lizzy Pleides: it find a thing
Sybyle Perdide: a computer works syntactic
Mick Nerido: I can ask it to look up a painting
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): and write the tonality, in graph
Qwark Allen is Online
Sybyle Perdide: but the we are able to act semiotically
Bejiita Imako: for a computer to "see" a pic it must be converted to just a string of 1 and 0 and thats what the cpu " sees" nothing more
Bejiita Imako: just on and off
Lizzy Pleides: so it can find it but not explain it
Bejiita Imako: and then it must use an DA converter to translate all pixels back for us to see the picture in the computer
Sybyle Perdide: a pc cannot find art
herman Bergson: smiles...
Sybyle Perdide: a pc don't know what is art
herman Bergson: ok ..ok...
Lizzy Pleides: type in Google Picasso and the computer finds art
herman Bergson: Let's dig into it in a next lecture...what a computer really can do
Mot Mann is Offline
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no it finds the name Picasso..not his art
Sybyle Perdide: the computer finds the syntactical combination of art and picasso
Sybyle Perdide: not more
Mick Nerido: A computer knows art is a thing does not know its meaning
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): its decoding voice tonality actually, when we do answer to informated questionary on the phone i think, but do we translate that in text?like thISSS iNNNsTead of THat
Lizzy Pleides: nods@ sybyle
Sybyle Perdide: smiles
Bejiita Imako: for a computer to understand that someone must strictly tell the computer how to respond when it "sees" that pic
Bejiita Imako: but the computer don't understand it better anyway
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): we may have to find new police to write
herman Bergson: WEll...I see that you are all fired up...
Bejiita Imako: it just blindly strictly follows the instructions to respond in that way you told it
herman Bergson: ready to hit the computer ^_^
Lizzy Pleides: the computer is a machine and it is stupid
herman Bergson: Let's do that next Tuesday..to begin with !
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): talking dos to the pc is not to bad, he teaches us his languages
Sybyle Perdide: yes, Lizzy
Sybyle Perdide: agrees
Sybyle Perdide: thank you herman
Sybyle Perdide: it was great
herman Bergson: yes Lizzy..computers are stupid ...to begin with
Sybyle Perdide: (because I got the semantic frame..hihi)
Bejiita Imako: a computer don't care if you scream at it when its not working or even if you blow it up with dynamite cause of that more than it will never work anymore after that
herman Bergson: so if our mind is like a computer maybe we are stupid too :-)))
Lizzy Pleides: giggles*
Bejiita Imako: is just a dumb calculator but the speed it does it at makes everything it can do happen
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): actually, computer, are how far we can creat a machine that will process.... faster,,, not more intelligently
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and who is giving the comments on the keyboard for us then?
Bejiita Imako: an i/ cpu does 177 bilion calculations/instructions per second
Bejiita Imako: even the first cpu the 4004 did around between 400000 and 900000
herman Bergson: Yes Alaya...that is how Big Blue defeated Kasparov in chess
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): oh
herman Bergson: just by speed and access to millions of data
Bejiita Imako: that say a bit how much a computer must do for anything to happen at all
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): hope that he can process the formula to denuclearised the contaminant
herman Bergson: What I find most fascinating is ...in movies...
herman Bergson: where a computer acts as a sentient person....
Mick Nerido: can we measure a computers IQ?
herman Bergson: no Mick
herman Bergson: because the outcome is what we programmed in it
herman Bergson: so it make no sense to measure its intelligence
herman Bergson: we know it in advance
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): i think that when we standardized and fix language in time, we do computerise our way of expression, making it artificial more than chanign and alive
Bejiita Imako: this is also why a terminator will never happen, although a computer can be self learning someone must deliberately program it to turn against us for it to do that all of a sudden
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): if our language become fixed, we have to change the software,,,in our m mind,s and its not working that way
Bejiita Imako: it could never get a such decision by itself cause a computer cant understand evil unless programmed to it
Bejiita Imako: by a person
herman Bergson: Do you know the laws of robotics Bejiita as formulated by Isaac Asimov?
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): but when its alive , it is adjusting and integrate all sort of meaning and new words
Bejiita Imako: yes a computer should never cause harm to anyone and must also prevent it from happening
Bejiita Imako: sort of
Bejiita Imako: something like that
Lizzy Pleides: so Asimov was intelligent and not the robot
Bejiita Imako: was 2 different rules i think
herman Bergson: yes ^_^!
Sybyle Perdide: yeah
herman Bergson: YE sI have to look them up myself for the details...
herman Bergson: But you are right, Bejiita
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): iff we compare the brain to computer, than we are forced to change our program s...?? as when we change the work mechanic and than ergonomic troubles arise
herman Bergson: Well..I think you are all ready for the computational theory of mind...now :-)
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): we will have semantic problem or syntaxic ones?
herman Bergson: We'll see Alaya...
Sybyle Perdide: hihi
Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman!
herman Bergson: SO thank you all for your good participation...again!
Farv Hallison: bye guys and girls.
herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
Bejiita Imako: a ye
Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
Bejiita Imako: really interesting „ã°
Sybyle Perdide: ciao Farv
:: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
Sybyle Perdide: good nigh to all
Alaya Chépaspourquoi (alaya.kumaki): thanks
Lizzy Pleides: Good night everybody
herman Bergson: Bye girls ^_^
Bejiita Imako: night
herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
herman Bergson: thnx

235: Plato's Republic

Today it is March 2, 2010. More than 2300 years ago there was a human being thinking about the basic question of political philosophy: how can one person ever justifiably claim the authority to govern another person.

This leads for us to all kinds of questions. Are the ideas of 2300 years ago relevant for our present situation? If we compare the ideas of 2300 years ago, have we improved on them? Has there been a learning process and do we now hold better ideas in political philosophy?

The thinker of more than 2300 years ago we are talking about, is of course, Plato. He wrote several dialogues concerning political matters.

The Politeia, misleadingly translated as Republic ("political order" would be better), is the most well known, I guess.

However, there are two other dialogues: The Statesman and Laws. All are written from Plato's social perspective: the city state, which of course shows an immense difference with our present complex society.

In the English-speaking world, under the influence of twentieth century analytic philosophy, the main task of political philosophy today is still often seen as conceptual analysis: the clarification of political concepts.

As such it has a long tradition and is first introduced in Platonic dialogues. But for Plato it was not just about the clarification of a concept in its meaning. The analysis was focused too on the evaluation of underlying beliefs.

And one of these beliefs which relates to the best political order, according to Plato, is the existence, the possibility of justice.

Justice, one of the most fundamental ethical and political concepts . It is a complex and ambiguous concept. It may refer to individual virtue, the order of society, as well as individual rights in contrast to the claims of the general social order.

Justice, if rightly understood, Plato argues, is not to the exclusive advantage of any of the city’s factions, but is concerned with the common good of the whole political community, and is to the advantage of everyone.

Justice is not an arithmetical equality: giving equal shares to all alike irrespective of merit, which represents the democratic concept of distributive justice, but it is equity or fairness based on difference: giving shares proportionate to the merit of those who receive them.

For Plato most people, corrupted as they are, are fundamentally irrational, driven by their appetites, egoistic passions, and informed by false beliefs. But at the same time we are social animals, incapable of living alone.

So to achieve justice in a society you need special people to supervise. Impartial people, who only concentrate on the common good.

They must be highly educated to be able to find the limits and proportionality between extremes (e.g. extreme poverty - extreme richness). This should be the task of philosophers in this society.

Thus, the ideal state , which has Plato in mind is based on justice and focused on the common good. To achieve this we need intelligent , rational and well-educated impartial people: the philosophers according to Plato.

Do we think the same? Do we have better ideas? Tel me! ^_^


The Discussion

[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: I wish
[13:17] ZANICIA Chau: How can you argue that?
[13:17] herman Bergson: So you think, Plato has something to tell Gemma?
[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: I would think so
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: but where re we to find these impartial people
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: how do we grow them
[13:18] Abraxas Nagy: it only works if justice is evenly distributed among social classes
[13:18] Repose Lionheart: Departments of Philosophy?
[13:18] ZANICIA Chau: Bravo Gem
[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:18] Abraxas Nagy: wich its not
[13:19] herman Bergson: Plato was very specific about these philosophers...
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: and how is it that all the other people are so bad
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: yes he was
[13:19] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:19] herman Bergson: they had no right to possesions, no family, marriage, etc
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: oh, i see
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: these special people???
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: wow
[13:19] Repose Lionheart: priests, i a way
[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes.. absolutely dedicated too the common good
[13:20] herman Bergson: Kind of priests indeed....
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: i say again how do we grow them
[13:20] ZANICIA Chau: hehe
[13:20] herman Bergson: YEs Gemma that is one thing....
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: very idealistic
[13:20] herman Bergson: another thing is this concept of Justice... how can we know that?
[13:21] herman Bergson: this is closely related to Plato's epistemology
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: well if it were defined by these impartial people ....
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:21] ZANICIA Chau: It IS ambiguous
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: you can only "grow" them with what will quickly become a bureaucracy
[13:21] herman Bergson: yes Zanicia, but here Plato comes with his cave metaphor
[13:21] Repose Lionheart: not sure that works for justice
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: very
[13:22] herman Bergson: we only see the shadows on the wall....
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: i started to read The Republic and gave it up
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: went to the summary
[13:22] Qwark Allen: eheh
[13:22] herman Bergson: only by great effort we can climb out of the cave and see the real thing in daylight
[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: b4 punctuation lol
[13:22] ZANICIA Chau: Not forgetting his admiration of Aristotle----
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well...Aristole will develop this idea of virtue, this ability of finding the mean between extremes further
[13:23] ZANICIA Chau: Great concerns have to be thoroughly worked through by the like minded, dont they professor?
[13:24] herman Bergson: In the eyes of Plato it was a matter of thorgough education and character
[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: ---I meant throughout our history in its entirety
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is certainly agreeable
[13:25] herman Bergson: And about growing them Gemma, Plato had real ideas about eugenetics indeed
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: I think the basic idea of the greek was that we can handle our affairs by by using our rationality.
[13:26] Laila Schuman: i am wondering... often God is turned to for that definition of justice... so would Plato have been separating philosophers from the variety of priests that were defining such concepts... or was that already accomplished
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: think we have less faith in rationality
[13:26] herman Bergson: and that we come to conclusions about what things like justice and goodness are by this rationality
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:27] herman Bergson: Plato was not religious like thinking will become with Saint Augustine for instance
[13:28] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see how the Greek shaped our philosophical thinking for ages
[13:28] herman Bergson: Do we have less faith in Rationality Repose?
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: I think so
[13:29] ZANICIA Chau: I believe so
[13:29] herman Bergson: in what do we have more faith?
[13:29] ZANICIA Chau: Tough call---
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: our forms of democracy work by balancing contending forces
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: not by reasonable concourse
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: though reason plays a role
[13:30] herman Bergson: yes...that was already the task of the philosophers in Plato's Politeia...to balance the different interests
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: oh, i see
[13:30] herman Bergson: You may have a point Repose...
[13:31] herman Bergson: BEcause rationality is just a concept...not what andd who we are
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:31] herman Bergson: so the balancing of interests is also based on the use of emotions I would say
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: A so called rational thought has an emotional connotation
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hmm seems true
[13:32] herman Bergson: When I say I am a democrate, I plead for justice...
[13:32] herman Bergson: then this is not an academic descriptive statement only
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: It is also something I stand up for
[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: Bravo
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: did Plato consider the differing needs of people in his notions of justice?
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: nice
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: Of course
[13:34] herman Bergson: as I said..in his opinion justice is not a matter of distribution everything equally
[13:35] herman Bergson: there is a realtion between what you merit and what you contribute to the society
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: no, but desserts is different from a distribution according to need
[13:36] herman Bergson: Main concern of Plato was that everyone could live a pleasant and peacefull life
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: so, yes, then...
[13:37] herman Bergson: I think we still want that ^_^
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: he could also see thet was Utopia
[13:37] herman Bergson: To conclude...
[13:38] herman Bergson: Plato's idea was that we can reach that society by using our rationality and developing our virues of justice and benevolence, etc.
[13:38] herman Bergson: So contrary to utilitarianists this idea is completely agent-based
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:40] herman Bergson: to say it in a simplistic way: if you all are a good person, then our society will be pleasant and peacefull
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: seems completely logical
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: great
[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: Back to base- we have to define 'good'/
[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: .
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: we can forget the others now
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Zanicia
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: good = dont do bad things like hurt others
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: good is virtuous
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: what is virtue
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: virtue ethics
[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: close- no cigar
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: like all these wars and shit all over the world now
[13:41] herman Bergson: In the beginning chapters of the Politeia Plato, or actually Socrates starts the analysis of that question
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes i saw that part
[13:41] herman Bergson: what is good = justice
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:42] herman Bergson: ?
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: aa
[13:42] herman Bergson: Teh discussion is rather elaborate and they try fouer different meanings of just
[13:43] Laila Schuman: i am imagining a tribe that says ... what is good is if my child is safe and we can eat... AT ALL COSTS
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: when everything works at its best and peaceful all over
[13:43] herman Bergson: I dont think the "at all costs" part can hold
[13:43] Laila Schuman: i can imagine it being said
[13:44] herman Bergson: It could for instance imply the death of your tribemembers?
[13:44] Laila Schuman: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: so here again you nead to find a balance between extremes
[13:44] Laila Schuman: for an animal... that might be "good"... and we are animals
[13:44] herman Bergson: get an agreement with your neighbor for instance...
[13:45] herman Bergson: honest distribution of low food supplies and so on
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ah yes
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: such things
[13:46] herman Bergson: I think the basic idea of Plato of how to create a state is clear, isnt it
[13:46] Laila Schuman: i look at america... and others... and frankly, that is what i see... the philosophy is only there after this is satisfied
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: justice as a basis
[13:46] herman Bergson: Fast food then philosophy, LAila?
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:46] Laila Schuman: lol sort of
[13:47] Justine Rhapsody: sorry need to leave early
[13:47] Laila Schuman: feed me first..then we will talk
[13:47] Laila Schuman: when i was in israel... at a kibbutz for people who survived the warsaw ghetto
[13:47] herman Bergson: We'll keep that in mind for the next time we gather...
[13:47] Laila Schuman: as kind s they were... eatting came first
[13:47] Laila Schuman: even if i was not hungry
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: eating is good...very very good
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehe yes
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: love some tasty stuff now and then
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: woop Gemma crash
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: o.o
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: O.o
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: o.O
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: poor Gemma
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes, but first you need education.... learn how to produce your tasty food
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: true
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: and some good recipes
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: so it is not just food we need to make a society work
[13:49] Laila Schuman: hunter hatherers
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: ha-bloody-ha
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: oops
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: unnecessary
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: wb Gemma
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: *:::* WELCOME BACK *:::*
[13:49] Abraxas Nagy: Gema
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:50] herman Bergson: wb Gemma
[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: wb-) gemma
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: Laila is right, but politics is not just about this...
[13:50] Laila Schuman: i think when push comes to shove ...we become primal... and selfish
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: not always
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:50] ZANICIA Chau: true
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: when not?
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: can be true sometimes at least
[13:50] Abraxas Nagy: in the movies?
[13:50] herman Bergson: That may seem so Laila, but it wont work
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: pushed really hard we often do
[13:50] Laila Schuman: looting in chile
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: there are always some who can not rise above the primal concerns
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: but sometimes the balance of forces in a society
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: allows for great things
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: rare as this is
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: the US decisively rid itself of slavery
[13:52] Laila Schuman: what i see is a scary precipice... between who we really are... and our ideal
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: i see it too
[13:52] Laila Schuman: very scary
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: courage
[13:52] Laila Schuman: yes... suddenly those words take on a profundity
[13:52] Laila Schuman: courage
[13:52] Laila Schuman: rational
[13:52] Laila Schuman: compassion
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: especially the later
[13:53] herman Bergson: Well... then I would like to suggest to have alook at other theories of society and see if we can be a bit possitive in the end about the human being
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: HOPE SO
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes!
[13:53] ZANICIA Chau: Another tough call -professor!
[13:53] herman Bergson: Ihave good hope Gemma ^_^
[13:54] herman Bergson: May I thank you all for your participation
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:54] Laila Schuman: what is it makes us bridge that gap... from animal to... thinker
[13:54] herman Bergson: And ROdney breaks a record...
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: Thanks, Prof! Another great one
[13:54] Laila Schuman: love or fear???
[13:54] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you professor
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: always love
[13:54] herman Bergson: He is not only late but while being here he even falls asleep!
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:55] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lolololol
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: RODNEY!!
[13:55] Bejiita Imako: haha
[13:55] herman Bergson: RODNEY!!!
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: oh well
[13:55] herman Bergson: lol
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: haaaahaaaahaaaahaaaahaaa
[13:55] Laila Schuman: fear can maky you band together... cooperate
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: :;;:+*'`'*+*'`'*+:;._((( HONK!! ))) _..;:+*'`'*+*'`'*+:;_
[13:55] Laila Schuman: self interest
[13:55] Repose Lionheart: tea-partyers
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:55] herman Bergson: We have a long way to go, Laila ^_^
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lol see you thursday
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: herman
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: fear unites
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜
[13:56] Qwark Allen: see you thursday
[13:56] herman Bergson: Be well everyone
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[13:56] Bejiita Imako: cu
[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: c ya

13a What is knowlege?

In our former lecture we looked at mathematics. Through history mathematics have been attractive for philosophers. Its universal applicability, its systematic structure, its consistency.

Mathematical deductions always lead to true conclusions. In that light it may not surprise you that Spinoza(1632 - 1677) already believed that he could develop a theory on ethics "Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata", in which the mathematical method was used as a model of reasoning.

However, mathematics may be a kind of knowledge, but in fact only knowledge about itself. That we can apply mathematical calculations to our emperical reality is something special, somewthing pragmatic.

So in fact, mathematical knowledge offers no clues to what we could call absolute and certain knowledge about our reality. We have to approach that issue from another angle apparently.

Again, what is so amazing in the history of thought, it was already Plato (427 - 347 B.C) who formulated the basic problem, or actually portraited Socrates in his dialogs as the searcher for knowledge.....definite knowledge.

And in all these conversations there is that distinction between what one BELIEVES and what one KNOWS. To know something is definitely something different from believing something.

Reality as we experience it, is shaped by our beliefs. Our beliefs guide us through the day. Nothing is more important that what you belief.

How many beliefs does a person have?....ten ..thousands, millions...Some we are aware of , other we become aware of by , for instance, look more closely at our behavior.

We have all kinds of beliefs, trivial ones as well as crucial ones. We believe that it is wrong to steal or to kill, and we also beliefve that 2 is more than 1 and 3 more than 2.

We can look at beliefs in two ways: a subjective and an objective way. With the subjective way I mean the mental attitude of being convinced of something, believing something.

With the objective way I mean the content of the belief, which we also may call a proposition, a statement that claims to have a truth-value. We'll mainly focus on this aspect of our beliefs: their content.

Everything we do is driven by our beliefs. Many philosophers regard human action as an interaction between our beliefs and desires: beliefs + desires = action.

But there is a problem....of course there is a problem...there always is a problem when you make a philosopher look at your stuff (^_^) We can have wrong beliefs, faulty beliefs.

How can we avoid faulty beliefs? The content of our belief is a proposition, as statement which claims to have a truth-value.

And when this proposition is true, isnt the belief then not something more than just a belief; may we not call that knowledge?

What Socrates was after is what we still find in our traditional definition of knowledge. Knowledge = adequately justified correct belief. This is what such a belief makes it differ from guesses, opinions or prejudices.

We can have faulty beliefs, but we can not know something false.....we only can know that something is false or to use the words of Aristotle:

To say of what is, that it is not, or to say of something that is not, that it is, is false; to say of something that is, that it is, and of say of something that is not, say that is not, is true."

Funny guys, those Ancient Greeks, but the question we have to deal with now is, is Aristotle right? Is it that plain and simple. Does truth really exist?

A number of philosophers says, oh yes.....but only in your given context, only from your perspective in your situation.

This is the well known view of relativism. There is truth indeed, but no absolute truth, according to relativism. Truth is always relative to your perspective, your context, your culture and so on.

But as we have seen in another lecture: this point of view is self-defeating, because it takes its own starting point as absolute, which is self-contradictory.

Belief is a necessary condition for knowledge. Truth is another necessary condition. Knowledge is built on true belief, but even that isnt enough.

Suppose I believe the Pope is now brushing his teeth.....And really..somewhere in the Vatican this man is brushing his teeth indeed. This means that the proposition: the Pope is now brushing his teeth is true

So my belief is true, but can it be called knowledge. Did I KNOW the Pope was brushing his teeth? Obviously not. I just was lucky.

So when we say that knowledge = adequately justified correct belief, there still is missing something in our quest for knowledge. What it is....you have till Thursday to figure that out for yourselves.


The Discussion

[13:26] ChatNoir Talon: Oh no, not homework! :(
[13:26] Myriam Brianna: it is already said
[13:26] Abraxas Nagy: o.O
[13:26] Paula Dix: to be continued
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: just thinking
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes indeed ..homework..
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:26] ChatNoir Talon: lol
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: a birthday present from herman
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: oops there goes ari again
[13:27] Paula Dix: :))
[13:27] herman Bergson: What is most important today is the concept of belief...
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:27] herman Bergson: all what we say is, knowledge starts with a belief
[13:27] herman Bergson: and knowledge appears to be a special kind of belief then :-)
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: but have not scientists proved some of the beliefs to be true and so now it is kn owledge???
[13:28] ChatNoir Talon: Can one know something without believeing it? .. I guess not... mhhh
[13:28] Myriam Brianna: a justified belief, in the light of (apparent) evidence, (apparent) sense perceptions, etc
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: well after it is proved
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Gemma....
[13:28] herman Bergson: and the question is....how did they prove it?
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: step by step
[13:29] Elia Scribe: Is it possible that mind can possess truth without what we call belief?
[13:29] oola Neruda: in science, an experiment needs to be repeatable
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: trying.. collection information
[13:29] herman Bergson: or said otherwise how was it justified being knowledge
[13:30] herman Bergson: Some philosophers agree with you Elia...
[13:30] Paula Dix: you imagine ways to test your belief??
[13:30] oola Neruda: but you will never know if it really is true because the next time you do it might be an exception
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:30] Paula Dix: yes, need continual testing...
[13:30] Elia Scribe: What would they're views be called then?
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: we always end up in the same place
[13:30] herman Bergson: Intuitionism is the most extreme, Elia
[13:30] ChatNoir Talon: Yes, and taking it one step further we can never know if we're inside the matrix really... so there's never a way to be 100% sure of anything
[13:30] Myriam Brianna: there's no way to eliminate what I'd call an epistemic base-doubt. Apart from tautological statements that are necessarily true there's no way to prove something absolutely
[13:31] herman Bergson: But basiclly Rationalism holds such views
[13:31] oola Neruda: yet mathematics is constant (so far) and can even predict
[13:31] Paula Dix: then its the testing, confronting the belief with reality
[13:31] herman Bergson: I agree with that Myriam....
[13:31] herman Bergson: but to get that far in this lecture would have taken too much time :-)
[13:32] Elia Scribe: rationalism holds which views? That truth can be had without belief?
[13:32] herman Bergson: But I must agree that what Myriam says will be our epistemic destiny
[13:32] Paula Dix: yes, makes sense :)))
[13:32] Myriam Brianna: so to speak of "knowing" something is to say: In the light of the (apparent) evidence etc available to me, I'm justified to belief that x is true
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Elia.....a priori knowledge for instance (Kant)
[13:32] ChatNoir Talon: Yeah, sounds good to me
[13:32] herman Bergson: Or I think so I exist (Descartes)
[13:33] Elia Scribe: I thought that was cogito ergo sum.
[13:33] Elia Scribe: I think therefore I am.
[13:33] Elia Scribe: :))
[13:33] herman Bergson: In latin yes, Elia...:-)
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: that is another one
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:33] Paula Dix: then its all probability, right?
[13:34] Myriam Brianna: Cogito, Ego sum. The R was a printer's mistake, at first
[13:34] Elia Scribe: :))))
[13:34] Elia Scribe: ego??
[13:34] herman Bergson: I havent heard that one ever Myriam :-)
[13:34] Paula Dix: we talk about physics laws because they are the same every time we test them, but even if we know they arent necessarily fixed we accept them as being
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Paula....
[13:34] Paula Dix: so its a matter of being used to things...
[13:35] Myriam Brianna: and I sadly don't know where I heard it first *g* ... probably in an discussion of the meditations by a logical positivist ^^
[13:35] herman Bergson: So somehow there must be some kind of theory of truth...
[13:35] Tess Aristocrat: don't seek the truth. just cease to cherish opinion
[13:35] Paula Dix: in the dictatorship times here people used to say Cogito ergo Pum (gun sound)
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Tess...but that brings us to adequately justified correct beliefs...
[13:36] ChatNoir Talon: Aye
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well....I think we reached a nice point here....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Myriam already revealed that we are not heading for an absolute truth theory..
[13:36] ChatNoir Talon: That'd be impossible
[13:37] herman Bergson: on the other hand does absolute relativism hold either..
[13:37] herman Bergson: so there must be something in between.....
[13:37] herman Bergson: YOUR HOMEWORK....lol
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:37] Paula Dix: lol
[13:37] ChatNoir Talon: Lol
[13:37] Tess Aristocrat: well there is fact and truth
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: there goes the weekend
[13:38] Tess Aristocrat: and common belief
[13:38] Paula Dix: no its for thursday!!!
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh right lololol
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: forgot
[13:38] Paula Dix: lol
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: today is tuesday
[13:38] herman Bergson: You should formulate it differently Tess....
[13:38] Myriam Brianna: weak relativism, - admitting that there's an etic reality beyond the filter of my cognition, and also admitting that there's no way to leave one's emic reality and speak about it :x
[13:38] herman Bergson: There is fact and there is a proposition (statement about the fact)
[13:39] Paula Dix: whats emic reality??
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes what is that Myriam?
[13:39] Elia Scribe: This epistemic base-doubt that Myriam speaks of ... can it not be factored out of any belief system and so we can then talk about absolute proof within that context?
[13:39] Myriam Brianna: on sec ;)
[13:40] ChatNoir Talon: Absolute proof seems pretty far-fetched
[13:40] Tess Aristocrat: do you have a particularformula yougo by?
[13:40] herman Bergson: That sounds contradictory elia...
[13:40] Elia Scribe: sorry to be out of context. I'm a slow thinker. :))
[13:40] Elia Scribe: Why is that Herman?
[13:40] herman Bergson: The proof isnt absolute but relative to its context only
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: emic and etic
[13:40] Tess Aristocrat: when something is wet, is it not wet?
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:41] Elia Scribe: Hmmm. Then I wonder what we mean by absolute.
[13:41] Myriam Brianna: an emic reality: The thoughts, feelings and (apparent) sense impressions that people create by talking to each other(or by communicating in any symbolism); the semantic environment
[13:41] Tess Aristocrat: when something is dead, is it not dead?
[13:41] Paula Dix: thanks Myriam :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Check the words of Aristotle Tess..:-)
[13:41] ChatNoir Talon: Tess, you should ask Shrödinger's cat
[13:41] Elia Scribe: Tess is cutting through :))))
[13:42] Paula Dix: emic reality is the realm of memes :)))
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: and etic: The hypothetical reality that has not been filtered through a human nervous system ;)
[13:42] Myriam Brianna: you could say that. Our socially formed reality, in which there are no absolute truth values
[13:42] Paula Dix: wow i thougth you meant ethic :))))
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well.....memes are a dangerous subject....
[13:42] Elia Scribe: why is that Herman?
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: and emic and etic are realy terms that need be studied upon....HOMEWORK
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: hello Qwark :)
[13:43] Qwark Allen: Hey! friends
[13:43] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: Hi Qwark
[13:43] Abraxas Nagy: yooooo Qwark bro
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: it depends on who you are asking if, say, Buddha is a historical person. But either he lived, or he did not
[13:43] Paula Dix: lol nooooo more homework! :)))
[13:43] Myriam Brianna: hehe
[13:44] herman Bergson: Hi Qwark....
[13:44] herman Bergson: Gemma will inform you about your homework :-)
[13:44] Alarice Beaumont: Hello Qwark :-))
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: lololool
[13:44] Myriam Brianna: ^^
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: restate it
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: for rodney too
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ok....we got a few interesting issues mentioned here..
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:45] herman Bergson: one: in what way can a belief be adequately justiefied
[13:45] Rodney Handrick: thanks Gemma
[13:45] herman Bergson: two: apparently won't we find a theory of absolute truth
[13:46] Qwark Allen: omg !!!! i got here after rodneeeey!!!!!!!!!!
[13:46] Paula Dix: lol
[13:46] herman Bergson: three: relativism is seft-defeating so no feasable solution
[13:46] oola Neruda: wonder how bush and cheney would anwser that... how can it be adequately justified
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: omg never
[13:47] herman Bergson: four: new terms : emic and etic ..and semantic environment
[13:47] herman Bergson: How do these terms fit in...
[13:47] Paula Dix: they fit in plato cave
[13:47] ChatNoir Talon writes all down on paper
[13:48] herman Bergson: All text will be publsihed on http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[13:48] Elia Scribe: Herman could you say a word or two about why you think memes are a dangerous topic?
[13:48] herman Bergson: No Elia...that is for a nex time when we'll discuss evolutionary epistemology..
[13:49] herman Bergson: At the moment we even have an epistemology...only a theory on beliefs :-)
[13:49] Elia Scribe: okee
[13:49] herman Bergson: And we have to find a way to classify at least a number of these beliefs as knowledge
[13:49] Elia Scribe: what is the fourth term?
[13:49] Paula Dix: emic and etic
[13:50] Tess Aristocrat: ok, so I'm to believe that 'memes' aren't all about 'me' and I should find investigate
[13:50] Object: Qwark Allen, thank you for your vote !
[13:50] Object: Qwark Allen, thank you for your vote !
[13:50] Elia Scribe: memes are conceptual amimals
[13:50] Tess Aristocrat: and etic :)
[13:50] herman Bergson: No..meme is a term coined by Dawkins
[13:50] herman Bergson: in 1974
[13:50] Object: Qwark Allen, thank you for your vote !
[13:51] herman Bergson: We'll get to that, but before that we have a way to go :-)
[13:51] herman Bergson: I think....you have enough on your mind now...:-)
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: wow yes
[13:52] Elia Scribe: I need more. I'm floating away.
[13:52] herman Bergson: So..thank you for your great participation in the debate and for your interest
[13:52] ChatNoir Talon gets her fishing pole and catches drifting Elia
[13:52] Myriam Brianna: not all who wander are lost, Elia =)
[13:52] herman Bergson: Hope to see you next Thursday:-)
[13:52] Object: Qwark Allen, thank you for your vote !
[13:52] oola Neruda: HAPPY BIRTHDAY HERMAN!!!
[13:53] Qwark Allen: HAPPY BIRTHDAAAAAAY
[13:53] herman Bergson smiles
[13:53] Paula Dix: yay!
[13:53] herman Bergson: And thank you for your congratulations
[13:53] Myriam Brianna: hu, there's a birthday to celebrate? Gratulations, Herman ;)
[13:53] ChatNoir Talon: HAPPY HAPPY!
[13:53] ChatNoir Talon: So, a virgo, huh?
[13:53] Frederick Hansome: before you go, could you explain a little more on the second assignment? a theory of absolute truty? Where are we supposed to ge with that?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: I wanna to tell you, in my own special way, that your extra special..............
[13:53] Qwark Allen: so have a GREAT DAYYYYYYYYYYY
[13:54] herman Bergson: Virgo.....hmmm.....in a way
[13:54] Qwark Allen: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY..............
[13:54] Qwark Allen: HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOUUU
[13:54] Qwark Allen: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY..................
[13:54] Qwark Allen: HAPPY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOUUU
[13:54] herman Bergson: thank you Qwark :-)
[13:54] Myriam Brianna: lol
[13:54] herman Bergson: Class is dismissed :-)
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: YEEEEEH FKN HAAAWWWWW!!!!!!
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:55] herman Bergson: lol
[13:55] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!!
[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \O/
[13:55] Qwark Allen: |
[13:55] Qwark Allen: / \
[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: that brings me back
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: thank you