skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If we wish to know what is going on in someone else’s mind, we must observe their behavior; on the basis of what we observe, we may sometimes reasonably draw a conclusion about the person’s mental state.
Thus, for example, on seeing someone smile, we infer that they are happy; on seeing someone scowl, we infer that they are upset.
But this is not, at least typically, the way in which we come to know our own mental states. We do not need to examine our own behavior in order to know how we feel, what we believe, what we want and so on.
Our understanding of these things is more direct than our understanding of the mental states of others, it seems.
The term used to describe this special mode of access which we seem to have to our own mental states is ‘introspection’.
A view which takes its inspiration from Descartes (1596 - 1650) holds that introspection provides us with infallible and complete access to our states of mind. On this view, introspection provides us with a foundation for our knowledge of the physical world.
Thence we come to know the physical world by first coming to recognize certain features of our mind, namely, the sensations which physical objects excite in us, and then drawing conclusions about the likely source of these mental states.
Our knowledge of the physical world is thus indirect; it is grounded in the direct knowledge we have of our own minds.
The view that introspection provides an infallible and complete picture of the mind, however, is no longer widely accepted.
On current accounts, introspection gives us access to only a very small corner of the mental world - comparable to the access unaided vision provides us to chemical processes. By far the greatest part of our mental life is simply inaccessible to introspection.
In the nineteenth century, Franz Brentano (1838 - 1917) and other philosophical psychologists were at pains to distinguish introspection, sometimes called inner observation, from its close relative, self-consciousness, sometimes called inner perception.
Introspection was a deliberate act of focusing a subject’s attention on some inhabitant in his stream of consciousness.
Self-consciousness was an indeliberate but inescapable, though partial, concomitant awareness on the part of a subject.
Early psychological introspectionists, such as Wilhelm Wundt and William James, believed that either introspection proper or some version of self-consciousness was the only possible method for inaugurating a truly empirical, that is, scientific, psychology.
It has shown to be a complete failure. The experiments they did, didn't offer much of interest. Besides that, the different schools disagreed on a lot of issues. There was no unified theory on introspection.
Surprisingly, the failure of introspectionism did not lead many people to question the inherent model of introspection.
The model of the inner eye scanning the mind and observing the mental states is still alive. Even a Daniel Dennett (1942 - …) describes introspection in terms of one part of the brain “accessing” another (like one part of a computer accessing another) and then, via the speech center, “printing out” the results.
In contemporary introspective experiments subjects produced reports that were more like stereotyped and predictable “folk” interpretations than detailed eyewitness accounts of inner events.
Besides, it seems that in cultures more or less uninfluenced by European culture people do not claim to have powers of introspection.
More important, there does not seem to be any part of the brain that functions as a monitor of those neurophysiological states that maintain and control conscious states.
Therefor, talking about mental states suggest that there is something, like you can see brain states on a scanner. But when you look closer at it,
then you really may wonder, whether this inner eye really exists, or that we drastically should revise the way in which we describe the working of our mind.
The Discussion
[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you... ㋡
[13:23] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:23] herman Bergson: The floor is yours
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah ㋡
[13:23] Qwark Allen: what kind of experiments they did to test introspection?
[13:23] herman Bergson: General conclusion....introspection is a kind of illusion
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:24] herman Bergson: That started with the laboratories like those of Wundt....
[13:24] herman Bergson: 1920....
[13:24] herman Bergson: I really have no detailed knowledge of whta they did Qwark....but when you look up Wundt you'll certainly find th eanswer
[13:25] Qwark Allen: ok
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:25] Qwark Allen: kind of strange
[13:25] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney!!!
[13:25] Mick Nerido: Introspection or the inner eye seems very real to me personally
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: hi Rodney
[13:25] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:25] Qwark Allen: when we think to ourselfves, it`s introspection?
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Mick it is to all of us....
[13:25] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bejitas
[13:25] Qwark Allen: about something
[13:25] Farv Hallison: a similar experiment is going on in physics, that spacetime is a illusion
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes like the read head in a hard drive scans the disk for information sort of
[13:26] herman Bergson: But as I also remarked ...there seem to be cultures that do not know such an inner eye way of thinking about one self
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: the same way we scan our memory when we try to remember some stuff
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and thats analogous to introspection i guess
[13:27] herman Bergson: One problem is that this inner eye doesnt see much in fact.... a lot of mental states are there unseen...
[13:27] herman Bergson: My basic question is ....what are mental states, what do we call identical with brian states
[13:28] Qwark Allen: a smile can be a sign of insecurity, or something esle
[13:28] Mick Nerido: So the inner eye may be a learned state like lanquage
[13:28] herman Bergson: And digging into introspection I am really at a loss...
[13:28] herman Bergson: for instance.....
[13:29] herman Bergson: we talk mainly of an inner eye....but what about the mentla state related to a smell....do we "see' that too?
[13:29] Farv Hallison: how much of the impression from the inner eye is visual?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes mick.....might be so.....a kind of language about ourselves which we have learned to use
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Farv..and more....IS IT VISUAL at all?
[13:30] herman Bergson: there has been a big debate for instance about the imageless thought..
[13:30] herman Bergson: are thoughts in images? Or not?
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: but when you think of a smell that you haeve felt before you will imagine that you feel it for real
[13:31] herman Bergson: What is the content of a thought?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Can we see that withthis inner eye?
[13:31] herman Bergson: After this lecture , to be honest, I have no idea what goes on in my head...in my mind...
[13:32] herman Bergson: ok...I can use that metafore of 'seeing'
[13:32] Qwark Allen: heehhe
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:32] herman Bergson: can use
[13:32] Farv Hallison: Is is possible that everything in the mind is symbols and relations between symbols?
[13:33] Mick Nerido: The mind seems to be doing many things at once the inner eye seems to be a part that is a self obsver
[13:33] herman Bergson: Well....when you take a pencil, Fav and a piece of paper
[13:33] herman Bergson: you can reproduce what is on your mind by writing down these symbols yes...
[13:34] herman Bergson: but where in your mind...or brain ...are these symbols if there are only neurons?
[13:34] herman Bergson: These neurons make you write the symbols, yes....
[13:35] Farv Hallison: the symbols are coded as on/OFF firing of neurons.
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: id say that they are in the chemical pattern or configuration of the neurons
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: much like 1 and 0 on a hard disk is represented by either north pr south magnetic polarisation in the surface on the disks
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: or
[13:35] herman Bergson: Interesting Farv.....for we'll get to thecomputational theory of the mind too....is the brian a computer so to speak!
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita....and we'll get to that soon
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: must be something similar
[13:36] Mick Nerido: Or like a kaleidoscope that we interpret with meaning
[13:37] herman Bergson: What it is al about is the question...does introspection generate knowledge...?
[13:37] Farv Hallison: DNA stores coded symbols
[13:37] herman Bergson: and if so...knowledge of what?
[13:38] herman Bergson: What we have seen is at least that introspection only offers minimal knowledge of a small area...
[13:38] Farv Hallison: The ON/OFF pattern of neurons has to be converted into language statements.
[13:38] herman Bergson: most of the time it is about attitudes, beleefs , feelings and the like
[13:39] herman Bergson: Ye s it is what you say Farv..maybe we should talk about our mind in terms of on / off somethingies ㋡
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: like binary code
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: sort of
[13:39] herman Bergson: in stead of "seeing ' inner pictures etc.
[13:40] herman Bergson: That is what Patricia Churchland suggests....
[13:40] herman Bergson: that our 'folk" psychology language is inadequate for describing the mind
[13:41] herman Bergson: the mind is much more than we introspecively can access....
[13:41] herman Bergson: so only some mental states can be known by us
[13:41] Qwark Allen: i think that is the main thing herman
[13:41] Mick Nerido: Perhaps music art etc are the result of this inner eye
[13:41] Omei Qunhua-Whelan (omei.qunhua) is Online
[13:42] Qwark Allen: it`s more genetic
[13:42] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:42] herman Bergson: A problem with which I struggle is mental STATE...A state is a clearly limited something....
[13:42] Farv Hallison: The coding in the brain could be 3 dimensional pattern of ON/OFF neurons, convertible to a linear sequence only by some algorithm.
[13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): so when our mind is like a computer..we can reset it if neccesary?
[13:43] Qwark Allen: ehheh and upload new software
[13:43] Farv Hallison: resetting would be dangerous.
[13:43] herman Bergson: That would be nice Beertje:)
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: hmmm don't seem like that , i haven't found my restart button
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: not always
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes...resetting it to what state...baby brain?
[13:43] Bejiita Imako: or we maybe restart when we sleep
[13:43] Farv Hallison: short term memory needs to be constanly refreshed.
[13:43] Rodney Handrick: Resetting...I think they call that a coma
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes a restart like a computer is impossible i think
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: on the other hand we don't hang completley either
[13:44] Farv Hallison: short term memories are converted to long term memories during sleep.
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: but sometimes when i ex play bowling and sudedenly from going well i start after a while change something and dont find back easily
[13:45] Mick Nerido: computer is electric, brains are electro chemical
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: then id like to be able to reset myself
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: same when playing golf
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: i have the feel the sometimes loose it and cant find it again for that round
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: and i cant reset myself what i know dung the game
[13:45] Qwark Allen: we know already what kind of language brain use to transfer information
[13:45] Bejiita Imako: wish i could
[13:45] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita ...sometimes luck leaves you ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hhe
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: cause im really good at it when its all correct
[13:46] herman Bergson: what language are you referring to Qwark?
[13:46] Mick Nerido: Why don't computer sleep?
[13:46] Qwark Allen: the one that the brain use
[13:46] Qwark Allen: like the brain "windows"
[13:46] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:46] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:47] Qwark Allen: they made first experiemnts years ago
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: when a computer is of its more like dead then sleeping
[13:47] Qwark Allen: remember when i talk about the test with the monkey,
[13:47] Qwark Allen: that the monkey had this wires in the brain
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: but you also can reawaken a computer bu simply applying power
[13:47] Qwark Allen: plugged to a pc
[13:48] herman Bergson: they did some similar kind of experiment
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: but with no power there is no activity at all = dead
[13:48] Qwark Allen: in the end the monkey realized, that didn`t need to move the hand in the mouse, to move the cursor at screen
[13:48] Qwark Allen: ´
[13:48] herman Bergson: bridging a removed neuron knot with a chip...
[13:48] Qwark Allen: was moving the cursor just by thinking about it
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes... brain control over a computer....I know about that
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: interesting
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: .)
[13:48] Qwark Allen: nowadays, there is a new technology for lost limbs, that use the same kind of interface
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ppl have artificial limbs that work like almost the original
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: i think its connected in fact so that whn you send the same signals as if you wanted to move your real arm it responds in same way
[13:49] herman Bergson: Well...as home work I suggest you test your own system of introspection again and ask yourself what you actually do or see when you are introspecting... ㋡
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: so it feels in other words like you moved your real arm
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: event its not there
[13:50] herman Bergson: To be honest...at the moment I don't know ㋡
[13:50] Qwark Allen: most of the time , mental images
[13:50] Mick Nerido: Can artifical limbs have feeling?
[13:50] Qwark Allen: no, but can be moved, just by thinking
[13:50] herman Bergson: You even can say that no limb has feelings....
[13:50] herman Bergson: the feelings come from the brain....
[13:50] Qwark Allen: its a new tech
[13:51] Qwark Allen: hehhehe in a way you are right hermman
[13:51] herman Bergson: that gives a location to the feeling...
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:51] Qwark Allen: some say, that the bowel is our second brain
[13:51] Mick Nerido: lost limbs have memory feeling in brain
[13:51] Qwark Allen: some depressions can be related with constipation
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ex when i move my hand it feels lke its only the hand i affect but these movement signals come from the brain
[13:51] Farv Hallison: The brain knows where the limb is because it has a map of the body.
[13:51] herman Bergson: yes well known phenomenon ...fantom limbs
[13:52] Qwark Allen: no, it`s because receive feedback from it
[13:52] Qwark Allen: you can see that, in tetanus
[13:52] herman Bergson: indeed Farv
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: so if those signals can be interpreted by artificial libs that in turn have feedback to the brain you would hardly feel any difference
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: i don't know
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: will be close to the real thing i'd say then
[13:52] Bejiita Imako: its interesting for sure
[13:52] Qwark Allen: tetanus is terrible, cause brain send stimulus to limbs, but have no feedback
[13:53] herman Bergson: Anyway....I hope I didnt crack your brains not like the last time....maybe I confused them now :-)
[13:53] Qwark Allen: so, it keeps sending stimilus
[13:53] Mick Nerido: More fun today!
[13:53] herman Bergson: So I thank you for your participation again....
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes that horrible disease
[13:53] Qwark Allen: you welcome
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:53] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed after Farv has finnished ㋡
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: interesting as always
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
After our intriguing questions about substance dualism, let's turn to the more traditional objections against this form of dualism.The substance dualist makes two claims about the mind. One: Mind and body are radically different kinds of substances.Two: Mind and body causally interact.These two claims are in tension. If mind and body are supposed to radically different, how can they causally interact?This objection was first put to Descartes by his contemporary, Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618 - 1680). Descartes' replies were highly evasive.He couldn't do anything else because he had no answer. In an attempt to find the answer he even did physical research on brains and in there he found the pineal gland, which he declared to be the point of connection between body and mind.Unfortunately this is the only explanation we have got. In the physical world all kinds of different substances exist. Sunshine can heat metal, for instance.Two very different kinds of physical substances: kind of electromagnetic radiation against an assembly of atoms. Yet physics can tell us in considerable detail about the way light affects metal.A substance dualist like the "inventor" of this metaphysics, Descartes himself, however, can provide no details at all about the way the mind and the brain affect each other.A good theory of mind should be able to explain a number of basic aspects of our mental states. For instance, (1) some mental states are caused by states of the world.(2) Some mental states are caused by actions. (3) some mental states cause other mental states. (4) some mental states are conscious. (5) Some mental states are about things in the world. (6) Some mental states are systematically correlated with certain kinds of brain states.What is striking about substance dualism is the extend to which it fails to illuminate the items on this list. The first two can already not be answered by the substance dualist.Substance dualism has to face more fundamental questions.The "Cogito, ergo sum" is a kind of "Here I am" statement. But this statement has a weak point: it is only ME who is there.Are you there too? How can I achieve knowledge of other minds? How can I know that other people have minds, since the only mind to which I have direct access is my own mind?The body is a physical object, controlled and determined by the laws of physics. If the mind is free, but the body is determined, it looks as if the freedom of the mind, the freedom of will, makes no difference.And there is the danger of skepticism. Everything can be a delusion, except my "cogito". It means that I am imprisoned in my own mind. If I am locked in my own experiences, how can I really know anything of an external world.?It may be clear that substance dualism is not an adequate explanation of what exists in our universe. Of course we know that we have a mind, that we have consciousness.But the idea that this mind is a special substance, which only interacts with our physical body, is hard to defend, since there is not the slightest evidence, that such a mental substance exists.The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: So much for substance dualisme...[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you[13:23] herman Bergson: Feel free to ask questions or give your remarks...the floor is yours[13:25] herman Bergson: This all sounded familiar to you all...[13:25] herman Bergson: Piece of cake?[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no not at all[13:25] Doodus Moose: i took a stress relief course....[13:25] Astronomer Somerset: ok our entire existence our experiences are unique to us because we experience and recognize each experiences according to our own internal model of the world and how we interpret them[13:25] Mick Nerido: This mental substance is akin to soul, not physically verifible[13:25] Qwark Allen: is there a possibility of a 3rd possibility?[13:26] Qwark Allen: non polarized[13:26] herman Bergson: well...[13:26] herman Bergson: if something is not physically verifiable, how can we have knowledge of it then???[13:26] Qwark Allen: seems a bit computer language , zero and one[13:27] Mick Nerido: Indirect evidence?[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: herman a fish swims in water but is it physically aware of the water in which it swims[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Qwark, the first problem me have been that we began counting.....a body and a soul and a mind...[13:28] Qwark Allen: it`s not really a dualism then[13:28] herman Bergson: what do you mean by indirect evidence Mick?[13:28] Astronomer Somerset: we as humans are currently traveling at over 400 miles an hour but we are not physically aware of the fact[13:28] herman Bergson: If you take reality as One, as Spinoza already did, there is no counting...no dualism...[13:29] herman Bergson: no Astro, but you could explain why that is in full detail I guess[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i can but i could not prove it without taking the observer off the planet and showing him the world revolving[13:30] Qwark Allen: the more i think about it, more logical seems to have 3 parts[13:30] herman Bergson: which three parts do you see Qwark?[13:30] Mick Nerido: Dualism requires no explanation other than it is what seem to explain my personal experience.[13:31] Qwark Allen: body, mind and soul[13:31] herman Bergson: hmmmm MIck.....[13:31] herman Bergson: Dualistic thinking is so deeply embeded in our culture.....[13:31] Qwark Allen: wherever you look in nature , 3 seems to be the answer to the the all thing[13:31] herman Bergson: religion plays an important part in that....[13:32] Astronomer Somerset: herman is a schiziophrenic aware of their other selfs[13:32] Qwark Allen: a tree have the body, leaves and the liquid to feed the leaves[13:32] herman Bergson: The magic of numbers Qwark....[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: and language[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: i still think language separates this[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: the 3 parts[13:32] herman Bergson: you also could say that a tree consists of billions of cells all with their own function...[13:33] Qwark Allen: was just a thought that dualism maybe , a little rationalist[13:33] Qwark Allen: to simplistic to explain[13:33] herman Bergson: the separation in three parts is a product of your brain , not a special property of the tree, I would say[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...:-)[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: herman - thats very buddhistic now[13:34] herman Bergson: I dont mind labels Ciska...[13:34] Mick Nerido: The brain has evolved to the point of conscious thought that seperates it from other physical reality[13:34] herman Bergson: But I start with regarding reality as one matter[13:35] Astronomer Somerset: a computer is a true dualist system it has physical hardware and seperate software and the two radically different components interact to produce something more than the two parts[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes mick....our brain can organize our experiences of the external world...put a kind of order into it to handle it[13:35] Mick Nerido: What is this matter that can think?[13:36] herman Bergson: THAT is our MAIN question Mick...yes![13:36] Astronomer Somerset: and computers are modeled on us[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Astro, but only in a primitive way...[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll get to that subject.....[13:37] Astronomer Somerset: our physical bodies are the hardware and our thought and emmotions are the software s[13:37] herman Bergson: You know Astro....[13:37] Mick Nerido: Science my prove dualism wrong but there is such a difference fromhow are brain works than any other organ[13:37] herman Bergson: through history people always have taken something from their reality to make it a model of how man is constructed...[13:38] herman Bergson: Leibniz compared the human being with a windmill....high tech in his time....[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: i am only offering explanations to prove dualism is a possibility[13:38] herman Bergson: Later the brain was compared to a switchboard for telephone....[13:38] herman Bergson: today we love to compare ourselves with computers...[13:39] herman Bergson: Historically an interesting phenomenon....[13:39] Mick Nerido: We build the way were are made...[13:39] herman Bergson: Since Descartes time we love to see the human body as a machine for instance[13:40] herman Bergson: But what does it teach us about the mind body problem....?[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: ok so how do you explain such things as schitzophrenia in a pure singularity existence[13:40] herman Bergson: that is a disfunction of the brain....[13:41] herman Bergson: I don't know if we have all explanations for the phenomenon already...[13:41] herman Bergson: But we know that there goes something wrong in the brain[13:41] Astronomer Somerset: but each separate state is a separate interpretation of that persons existence and i have seen such people with both male and female character traits[13:42] Mick Nerido: Joan d' Arc was probably schizo[13:42] herman Bergson: oh yes...anything is possible if the brain starts short circuiting[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Mick....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: including dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: We have the "God Helmet" now created by that Canadian neuroscientist...[13:43] herman Bergson: Thsi helmet can create such "religious" experiences....[13:44] herman Bergson: Forgot the name...[13:44] Mick Nerido: Is it always a mis function then?[13:44] herman Bergson: I gave a lecture about that[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: good question Mick[13:44] herman Bergson: I would say yes....[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: well- that is based on our values[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: of course[13:44] Mick Nerido: She was a great leader...[13:45] herman Bergson: no..not based on values...but on knowledge13:45] herman Bergson: That she was a great leader doesn't proof a thing Mick...[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge of the past[13:45] herman Bergson: except that she was a great leader[13:46] Mick Nerido: Many saints died as for their belies, were they nuts?[13:46] Mick Nerido: beliefs[13:46] herman Bergson: On the other hand you also can say that Joan was efficiently used by those who were in power...untill she became unconvenient....and simply was murdered by those who were in power[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: herman may i ask do you have any physical proof that dualism does not exist or are you prophiciating your own interpretation and beliefs[13:47] herman Bergson: Well Mick...for that I have only one question....[13:47] herman Bergson: Why aren't there saints anymore today.....[13:47] Mick Nerido: Herman I will nominate you![13:48] herman Bergson: smiles[13:48] herman Bergson: forget it..[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): mother Teresa?[13:48] herman Bergson: No...our view has changed....[13:48] herman Bergson: no Beertje...[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: well- thats exactly what i meant before herman[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: knowledge alters[13:48] herman Bergson: I mean saints that see Maria or Jesus himself or things like that[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: and with alteration we judge differently[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: some people would state the Dalai Lama as on like that[13:49] herman Bergson: When somebody would tell us that he had spoken to Jesus personally and has a message for us, we would at least frown at the person....[13:49] Astronomer Somerset: those are visionaries herman not saints[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: yes - we lable them differently[13:49] Mick Nerido: The mind can overrule what is best for our bodies and our loves, a kind of dualism[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: just different language - agree with you there #Astro[13:50] Astronomer Somerset: to be a saint they must have performed miricales[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: and what is a miracal is again defined by values and knowledge at that very moment[13:50] herman Bergson: According to ROme..indeed Astro..you evenhave to have performed three miracles![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: yes you do[13:51] herman Bergson: That rules me out, Mick....I haven't performed a single miracle[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: one could call leonardo or copernicus or newton visionaries but non are saints[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): after death Herman...[13:51] Astronomer Somerset: michael angelo claims his image of god was a vison[13:52] herman Bergson: I don't know what you mean by visionaries Astro, unless you mean...excellent scientists[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: every scientist needs a vision[13:52] herman Bergson: imagination Ciska...[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: star trek beamer leads to scientist searching for it in swiss[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: no a visionary is someone who experiences a sudden realisation outside of a normal experience herman[13:52] herman Bergson: drive[13:52] Mick Nerido: It's a miracle getting me to understand philosophy![13:53] Ciska Riverstone: where is the difference herman?[13:53] Qwark Allen: ehehhe nice mick[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: *gggg* mick ㋡[13:53] herman Bergson: Cool Mick...two to go for me then ^_^[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: count me in ;)[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...were are we?[13:54] herman Bergson: Done with substance dualism?[13:54] Mick Nerido: Humor is only possible in higher brains, why?[13:55] herman Bergson: That is because of self relection Mick[13:55] herman Bergson: Humor is always making a joke of yourself...[13:55] herman Bergson: animals have no ability to self reflection[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to go[13:56] herman Bergson: They can look in a mirror, but only we can laugh at the sight :-)[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very interesting as usual[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: bye qwark[13:56] Qwark Allen: thank you hermann[13:56] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark![13:56] herman Bergson: Give my regards to Gemma[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not in the mornings Herman,,pfew....those wrinkles..[13:56] Doodus Moose: self reflection on ones' self reflection?[13:56] herman Bergson: Just then you should laugh Beertje...[13:57] herman Bergson: Friends....[13:57] herman Bergson: this was again a nice discussion[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman - very interesting as always[13:57] herman Bergson: I don't think we are done yet, so next Thursday same time same place ![13:58] Mick Nerido: Very nice discussion, thanks all![13:58] herman Bergson: yes thank you all...[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)))[13:58] Doodus Moose: Thanks indeed, Professor![13:58] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:58] isobelle Garnet: very interesting thank you[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[13:59] herman Bergson: You too ciska![13:59] Doodus Moose: byeeee!!!!!!![13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight all:))[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye:)[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: bye herman[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Astro...[14:02] isobelle Garnet: bye thank you[14:02] herman Bergson: You're ok Alaya?[14:03] herman Bergson: You are ^_^[14:03] herman Bergson: bye[14:03] Teleport completed from http://slu
In my research I came across something that was completely new to me. An attack on the principle, on which Descartes based his argument: the principle of indiscernibility of identicals. It is so exciting that I quote you the whole text.-Begin QUOTE: source Wikipedia (english)The principle of indiscernibility of identicals – that if two objects are in fact one and the same, they have all the same properties – is mostly uncontroversial. However, one famous application of the indiscernibility of identicals was by René Descartes in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes concluded that he could not doubt the existence of himself (the famous cogito ergo sum argument), but that he could doubt the existence of his body. From this he inferred that the person Descartes must not be identical to his body, since one possessed a characteristic that the other did not: namely, it could be known to exist.This argument is rejected by many modern philosophers on the grounds that it allegedly derives a conclusion about what is true from a premise about what people know. What people know or believe about an entity, they argue, is not really a characteristic of that entity. Numerous counterexamples are given to debunk Descartes' reasoning via reductio ad absurdum, such as the following argument based on a secret identity: 1. Entities x and y are identical if and only if any predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa. 2. Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity; that is, they're the same person (identical) but people don't know this fact. 3. Lois Lane thinks that Clark Kent cannot fly. 4. Lois Lane thinks that Superman can fly. 5. Therefore Superman has a property that Clark Kent does not have, namely that Lois Lane thinks that he can fly. 6. Therefore, Superman is not identical to Clark Kent. 7. Since in proposition 6 we come to a contradiction with proposition 2, we conclude that at least one of the premises is wrong. Either:- Leibniz's law is wrong; or- A person's knowledge about x is not a predicate of x; or- The application of Leibniz's law is erroneous; the law is only applicable in cases of monadic, not polyadic, properties; or- What people think about are not the actual objects themselves; or- A person is capable of holding conflicting beliefs. Any of which will undermine Descartes' argument.[3]End QUOTEOf course I can give the the standard objections to dualism and I will, but like this attack on the principle which Descartes uses, you never read much about the semantics of Cogito ergo sum in the standard introductory textbooks on philosophy.But just take a minute to look at that statement "I think, therefore I am". If it is a proposition, or actually two propositions, one inferred from the other, then it must have a truth value. The propositions must be either TRUE or FALSE.Suppose that the propositions are true and then take the first two theses of the Tractatus of Wittgenstein:1 The world is everything that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.Thinking is a factual process…leads to being as some factual state. So far so good, but the process and state are depending on this "I". Where did Descartes find that "I"??? To what fact does this "I" refer to?Then I found an article by Jaako Hintikka ,a Finnish philosopher and logician, in the magazine "The Philosophical Review", Vol. 71,No. 1 (1962) and my heart jumped. Let me quote the first paragraph and you'll understand why.-begin QUOTE1. COGITO, ERGO SUM as a problem. The fame (some would say the notoriety) of the adage cogito, ergo sum makes one expect that scholarly industry has long since exhausted whatever interest it may have historically or topically. A perusal of the relevant literature, however, fails to satisfy this expectation. After hundreds of discussions of Descartes's famed principle we still do not seem to have any way of expressing his alleged insight in terms which would be general and precise enough to enable us to judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it.Thirty years ago Heinrich Scholz wrote that there not only remain many important questions concerning the Cartesian dictum unanswered but that there also remain important questions unasked.' Several illuminating papers later, the situation still seems essentially the same today. - End QUOTESo my semantical doubts about the Cogito are not unjustified. Digging into this theme is beyond the scope of our present project, but it really intrigues me. So, we have fundamental questions about Descartes Cogito, but let's assume it is a valid inference based on true propositions. In the next lecture we shall "judge its validity or its relevance to the consequences he claimed to draw from it." to quote Hintikka.The Discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: I hope I wasn't to difficult today.....:)[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry Herman i was late..i have to read the blog[13:24] herman Bergson: Bu tif you have any remakrks or questions...the floor is yours now ㋡[13:25] oola Neruda: what criteria will you use to make that judgement or examination[13:25] herman Bergson: what judgement oola?[13:25] oola Neruda: about the Descartes assertion[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...most important is to keep in mind that Descartes postulates the existence of two different SUBSTANCES[13:26] Mick Nerido: Superman and Clark Kent are the same but not identical...[13:27] herman Bergson: so ontologically...there exist really two different things...that is the content of our univers[13:27] herman Bergson: the mental and the physical...[13:27] Astronomer Somerset: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same[13:27] Bejiita Imako: a'[13:27] Doodus Moose: wonders how Descartes would view a room of avatars attending a philosophy lecture [13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is my thought astro[13:27] oola Neruda: what i meant was... some formula of logic... some philosophy that is felt to be truth... the tools for disceting it[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i always wonder that doodus about all of them[13:28] herman Bergson: one moment..[13:28] herman Bergson: there is no such thing as duality as no two things are the same...can you elaborate on that astro?[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Mick[13:29] Mick Nerido: Two things can be the same but not identical i.e. Superman/ Clark Kent[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: yes i think so even if you where to create two identical objects they would still not be the same as they are both created from independant seperate atoms[13:30] Astronomer Somerset: for true dualism they would have to be made from the same atoms[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Astro..that is also one of the arguments against the identity principle....[13:31] herman Bergson: like two object may have all identical properties...except their location in space....[13:31] Astronomer Somerset: even a mirror image is not identical as it is the reverse[13:31] herman Bergson: However..I have a true SL argument against that![13:31] Bejiita Imako: aaa thats true[13:31] herman Bergson: When I make a prim....[13:32] herman Bergson: and I duplicate that prim at the very same location I have true identity...[13:32] herman Bergson: hmmmmm[13:32] Doodus Moose: except that they have different Keys[13:32] herman Bergson: maybe you would say...no...for when you seperate them they show to have different pixels[13:32] Bejiita Imako: interesting idea[13:32] herman Bergson: Cool Doodus....[13:33] herman Bergson: You win!!!!![13:33] Doodus Moose: it's how the system knows they are different :-)[13:33] herman Bergson: yes the key is different...absolutely![13:33] Astronomer Somerset: no you don't both objects are made from separate zero's and ones you have just two codes the same but they are still separate binary bits[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aa yes they are still 2 different objects even if perfect copies cause simply you have 2 separate ones with2 prim ids or so[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and not just 1[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yaaaaayyyyyyyy![13:33] Bejiita Imako: or dont know[13:34] Mick Nerido: Identicalness is based on more than appearences[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe that got my mind spin a bit[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hhee[13:34] herman Bergson: you even could claim that the two prims differ in memory addresses in my computer[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but one thing i use to say is that even of 2 things are identical they cant be the same cause there are still 2 of them[13:34] Astronomer Somerset: even two identical twins created from the same egg are not identical[13:34] Bejiita Imako: for it to be the same you can have only 1[13:35] herman Bergson: Well I think it now is clear enough that Descartes appeal to the principle of identity is not waterproof ^_^[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hmm is a bit tricky for sure[13:35] Doodus Moose: "identical" might be true in mathematics, where things on either side of the "equal" sign (could) be the same...[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): even with cells[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:36] druth Vlodovic: wouldn't the spiritual dimension be a property of matter, rather than a duplication of it?[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...that is a next station we will visit...[13:37] herman Bergson: property dualism.....[13:37] herman Bergson: A weaker form of dualism than substance dualism[13:37] druth Vlodovic: 'k[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:37] herman Bergson: The second issue that fascinates me here is the semantics of the "I" in the cogito[13:38] Astronomer Somerset: herman is the statement i think therfore i am truthfully a statement of self aware not existance[13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest ..it was in preperation of this lecture that I really seriously began to think about it...[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it always seemed so rational to me[13:40] Astronomer Somerset: a whale or an ant exist but they may not think the are products of chemical programming[13:40] herman Bergson: well...the title of the article of Hintikka is ... The Cogito: Inference or Performance[13:40] herman Bergson: I just found the article and handt the time to read it[13:40] herman Bergson: except the first few paragraphs :-)[13:41] herman Bergson: Well astro....I think that relates to theproblem of the semantics regarding the "I" in the statement...[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: i always took it to mean a referal of ID[13:42] herman Bergson: Descartes adds almost secretly something to existence....[13:42] Astronomer Somerset: which is self aware[13:42] herman Bergson: that I....that awareness...[13:43] herman Bergson: I haven't thought this although yet....[13:43] Mick Nerido: I know I exist...[13:43] Astronomer Somerset: yes it's a statement of self I as in me myself or I[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the awareness was the starting point, onto which he added everything else[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes mick....but that statement PRESUPOSES the I[13:43] herman Bergson: that is what fascinates me here[13:44] Mick Nerido: If I was unconcious I would still exist.[13:44] Astronomer Somerset: we exist in sl but we are not a physical part of the programming we are a user and our avi's are just binary code so do we exist in sl[13:45] herman Bergson: We will get to such arguments in the next lecture Mick....[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hmm this is also an interesting thing[13:45] herman Bergson: smiles[13:45] Bejiita Imako: take plants for example[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they are alive but are they self aware[13:45] Bejiita Imako: they have no brain[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Astro...a fascinating move to focus on the existence of the avatar...:-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: seems just a bunch of individual cells with no consiousness but its still life[13:46] Mick Nerido: I think therefore i am aware of my existance...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: or a tree[13:46] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel[13:46] druth Vlodovic: we "exist" in SL to the extent to which we can affect it, if something existed which could have no effect on anything then it could not be said to exist[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] Astronomer Somerset: certain plants do have a basic neural pathway venus flytraps sense their pray by touch[13:47] herman Bergson: Very cryptic Druth....[13:47] Bejiita Imako: sl is a digital extension of ourselves[13:47] Mick Nerido: SL existence is 2 dimentional[13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on......![13:47] Astronomer Somerset: no sl is a medium that allows us to express our true selfs[13:48] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes sort of that[13:48] herman Bergson: the concept of self awareness implies that the agent can say..That is me[13:48] Doodus Moose: astro - if that is what you choose to express[13:48] herman Bergson: only few organisms are able to do that[13:49] herman Bergson: one is the human being...[13:49] herman Bergson: but some animals can show by their bhavior the same expression "That is me"[13:49] Doodus Moose: ahhh, the elephant in the mirror[13:49] herman Bergson: chimps, and elephants , yes[13:49] herman Bergson: dolphins too[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I have to go now[13:50] Bejiita Imako: o cu Gemma[13:50] Mick Nerido: What about Superman? lol[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:50] Doodus Moose: byee Gemma![13:50] Astronomer Somerset: bye gemma[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: byeee Gamma, TC[13:50] herman Bergson: Bye GEmma....[13:50] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...[13:51] herman Bergson: Gemma is right...[13:51] Adriana Jinn: thanks you professor[13:51] herman Bergson: it is about time to come to a conclusion...[13:51] Doodus Moose: i'm sure humans are the only beings yet to demonstrate a value of virtual items :-)[13:51] herman Bergson: Ok one last remark or question...:-)[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: at the very core of this question is a more fundamental question that needs to be understood befor we can truly answer these questions[13:52] druth Vlodovic: cats watching a hockey game do it :)[13:52] herman Bergson: which is Astro?[13:52] Astronomer Somerset: and that is what is thought[13:53] herman Bergson: or more precise perhaps...what is The Mind, Astro?[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: yes[[13:53] herman Bergson: Good conclusion...thnx![13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for the wonderful discussion....[13:53] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: hmm this was very interesting[13:54] Bejiita Imako: for sure[13:54] herman Bergson: Your question will be our main focus for what is to come Astro[13:54] Bejiita Imako: got me something to think about[13:54] Adriana Jinn: very interesting yes[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Adriana Jinn: have to read it quietly after hihihih[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] Qwark Allen: awsome hermann[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] herman Bergson: Thx QWark..[13:55] Qwark Allen: i`ll read the begining in the blog[13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hooo!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: Hoooo![13:55] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!![13:55] Qwark Allen: ☆*¨¨*<♥*''*BEJIITA!!! *''*<♥:*¨¨*☆[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hooooooo!!!!!!! \o/[13:55] Qwark Allen: |[13:55] Qwark Allen: / \[13:55] Qwark Allen: ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮[13:55] Qwark Allen: Hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!![13:55] herman Bergson: All will be posted in the blog asap....Adriana[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....feeling......transparent.......[13:55] Qwark Allen: ok nice[13:55] Doodus Moose: ....getting .....cloudy.....[13:55] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney...[13:55] herman Bergson: RIght in time as usual ^_^[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:56] Rodney Handrick: that time zone thing[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..i have to read the lecture from the beginning[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman!! ty class :-) see u nex week![13:57] herman Bergson: next week?[13:57] herman Bergson: ^_^ ?[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: danke auch von mir, next time is tuesday?[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye:-)[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy..Tuesday same time same place[13:57] netty Keng: servus[13:58] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all..see you next tuesday[14:00] druth Vlodovic: thanks for the lecture herman, it was interesting[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thank you herman[14:01] druth Vlodovic: I'm afraid I'm off seeking food[14:01] druth Vlodovic: have fun all[14:01] herman Bergson: you are welcome Astro[14:01] Astronomer Somerset: thats ok will you be back later[14:02] herman Bergson: anytime
In fact it is remarkable, that in the philosophy of mind we speak of "The Mind - Body PROBLEM". Is it really a problem and in what sense is it a problem?Let's see, what most people take for granted. Real facts:1. You have a mind and a body;2. These normally work together; 3. Your body is something physical and, thus, everybody can see you;4. However, nobody can look into your mind. We love stories of mind readers, but so far these are still fairy tales5. Which means that tho everybody can see your physical outside, you have privileged access to the content of your mind.These are apparently rather obvious facts of life. We all know that we have a body and a mind and that the mind is not the same as the body.But when you put these obvious facts under a philosophical magnifying glass, there may rise serious questions? Especially, ok….the body is physical, but the mind? What kind of material is a mind made of.And when I look at this physical body of mine, makes it sense to ask where my mind is? Is it really in my head, as I am inclined to think?The simplest position that makes sense regarding these questions is called Dualism, a philosophical answer to such questions developed by Descartes (1596 - 1650).Descartes thought to have proved that the mind really was distinct from the body. According to him there are two substances in the universe: the physical and the mental.The physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics. The mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness.The logic of Descartes arguments has had such an impact on our thinking about the mind, that we still are prone to take a dualistic approach when we talk about our body and mind.Maybe you could say, that Descartes showed with strong and logical arguments, that our common sense ideas about the existence of a mind in a body are justified.The arguments lead to two related conclusions: 1. that your mind is in no way the same thing as your body or any part of your body;2. that what is essential to you is not your body but your mind.Crucial to the argument is a basic principle which was later named by Leibniz (1646 -1717) the "indiscernibility of identicals".The basic idea is: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing-- then anything true of one is true of the other or more technically said: For any x and y, if x is identical to y, then x and y have all the same properties.I guess most of you will know Descartes strategy to discover absolutely certain knowledge. He would have loved the movie the Matrix and would have said…there, you see? All can be fake; everything is only in your mind. You can doubt almost everything.And here comes the proof, that Dualism MUST be right. Remember the "indiscernibility of identicals" principle. What does it tell us? If A and B are identical, are the very same thing, then what true is of A is true of B as well.So IF the body is identical with the mind …. remember the slogan "We are our brain!", then what is true of the body is true of the mind.However, I truly can doubt the reality of my body. I can imagine that I have a body or some evil demon makes me believe that I have a body.But can an evil demon make me imagine that I am doubting? Were I to doubt that I was doubting, I still would be doubting. The same applies to thinking. I still would be thinking. That means….whatever there is in reality, only of the existence of the mind, my mind, I can be absolutely certain.In other words, I say something that is true of my mind, which is not true of my body. So body and mind can not be identical substances. Thence Dualism is right!The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡[13:22] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::[13:22] Adriana Jinn: very interesting[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you Qwark...[13:23] Qwark Allen: i arrived just in time[13:23] herman Bergson: If anyone has a question or remark...the floor is yours ㋡[13:23] herman Bergson smiles[13:23] Alaya Kumaki: i can see that if the mind isn't visible there is no such thing as 2 thing, but only the body, a thinking body[13:23] Jenna Felton is Offline[13:23] herman Bergson: In coming lectures I'll show you that Dualism can't be true...[13:24] Qwark Allen: we are matter and electricity[13:24] Alaya Kumaki: that mean that there isn't a duality but or just a mind that we cannot see as a thing,[13:24] Qwark Allen: 2 different things[13:24] herman Bergson: Well.....[13:24] herman Bergson: Descartes believed that there really were two different substances....[13:25] herman Bergson: Therefor his ideas are called substance dualism....[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: this is the position of descartes as only the mind, as a thin with all into it, that made me think of the opposite[13:25] Mick Nerido: like earth, air water fire?[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll see in coming lectures that attempts have been made to uphold a weaker form of dualism[13:25] Qwark Allen: science nowadays says the same, we cannot explain conscience, but seems we are getting the idea how the brain process the information[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: why didn't he explore as leibniz the posibility of no 2 thing?[[13:26] herman Bergson: A philosopher he knew...Spinoza denied that there were two substances...[13:26] druth Vlodovic: because dualism explained the "inherent truths" that felt real due to their religious socialization as children[13:27] Alaya Kumaki: its difficult to figure out where he had the confirmation of the mind as a substance,,,[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Druth.....Descartes has a religious bias...[13:27] herman Bergson: He had to leave matter to science en the mental/the soul to religion[13:27] herman Bergson: It was a kind of intellectual escape for him[13:28] herman Bergson: Spinoza was severely punished for his monistic ideas...[13:29] herman Bergson: He dared to say that when the body dies there doesn't remain a soul...[13:29] herman Bergson: that lives on for ever[13:29] herman Bergson: immortal soul...yes[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: so that would explain his rejection of the earthly body importance?[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes could leave that out of the debate[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: as low.... or insignificant, and all in the soul or mind or spirit?[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes ...since decartes western thought has put the ratio at first place....[13:30] Alaya Kumaki: well we had that influence a lot is it[13:30] herman Bergson: nowadays you see that we leave that position[13:31] herman Bergson: and say that we are not mainly RATIONAL beings...[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: lol[13:31] Alaya Kumaki: :)[13:31] herman Bergson: In fact Freud already pointed at that fact by defining the subconscious[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: in gestalt they pointed the subconscious into the body,,[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: when in contact with certain part of the body , lost memory came back[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes...but as something that influences our actions....[13:32] Alaya Kumaki: yes[13:33] herman Bergson: If nobody has any questions or so anymore.....[13:33] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation....[13:33] Alaya Kumaki: if the mind is linked to the body as separate throught the nervous wire, than those wire pass all throught it, i see a brain body....[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:33] Doodus Moose: Thanks, indeed, Professor![13:34] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll see how right Dualism is[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: thank you Herman - very interesting[13:34] herman Bergson: or wrong of course ㋡[13:34] Doodus Moose: hihi[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: its very interesting, mm my cup of tea[13:34] Alaya Kumaki: thanks[13:34] herman Bergson: My pleasure Alaya[13:35] Doodus Moose: now to use my mind to decide what to feed the body :-)[13:35] druth Vlodovic: what if we all get so firmly converted to dualism that you can't bring us back around?[13:35] Qwark Allen: very interesting as always[13:35] Qwark Allen paid you L$100.[13:35] herman Bergson: I am not afraid of that Druth....[13:35] Doodus Moose: byeeeeee!!!!!![13:35] herman Bergson: Philosophy is about clear and logical arguments.[13:36] Adriana Jinn: thank you very much professor[13:36] herman Bergson: So do Decartes arguments hold?[13:36] herman Bergson: We'll put that to the test![13:36] herman Bergson: It will be interesting ㋡[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:37] Adriana Jinn: as always[13:37] Mick Nerido: Mind over matter or matter over mind..[13:37] Qwark Allen: seems we are still in the mind/jar theme[13:37] herman Bergson: THAT is a dualistic way of thinking Mick[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: *ggg*[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: or again maybe not ;) - we will find out -maybe its just like someone said the other day: we need a new language ;)[13:38] Mick Nerido: That is our common sense way of thinking[13:38] herman Bergson: That may be true Ciska...[13:39] herman Bergson: In 1986 Patricia Churchland said so in her book Neurophilosophy[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: language makes borders too[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: not needed ones i guess - useless ones for understanding sometimes[13:39] herman Bergson: And there are others that claim that our mental concepts will become obsolete...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: yes...[13:40] herman Bergson: Like we now don't speak of spells and whitchcraft etc anymore...[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: other words - same concept different way of seeing it ;)))[13:40] herman Bergson: yes....something like that[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well- we will see what you offer herman - always great to get insights ㋡[13:41] Mick Nerido: Thanks, bye[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: have a great time everyone[13:41] herman Bergson: Like water, earth, fire and air are no longer concepts in physics...[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: bye folks[13:41] herman Bergson: Bye ciska
After our sidetrack on the question "What is matter?", let's return to our main road, that of investigating materialism itself.If fact, for a materialist, it hardly matters, what matter is made of. Atoms, molecules, whatever, maybe with the exception that matter complies to laws of nature.When you look at the history of materialism, you look at the basic philosophical question "What exists?" And it is astonishing to see how the human mind has answered that question.Materialism, and thence monism, has been a theme in European speculative thought from the earliest periods for which there is any record. In the previous lecture I already mentioned Leucippus and his pupil Democritus, who lived in the 5th center BCE!Their basic idea was that the fundamental stuff was of just one kind (matter) and that the fundamental entities were material atoms. These atoms are in constant motion in a void that surrounds them.Then when you look at a few theses that can be deduced from their "atom theory" and when you ask yourself the question "How can a human mind come to such insights", if you take into account that those Greeks had no technology whatsoever, that could have suggested these conclusions, it is amazing.Theses about what is formulated more than 2500 years ago!(1) Nothing exists but atoms and empty space.(2) Nothing happens by chance (for no reason at all);everything occurs for a reason and of necessity.This necessity is natural and mechanical; it excludes teleological necessitation.(3) Nothing can arise out of nothing; nothing that is can be destroyed. All novelties are merely new combinations or separations of atoms.The conclusions you can come to drawn from these theses are far reaching. The world is purely mechanical, an idea that became the basis of of the scientific revolution of the 17th century.Teleological necessitation is excluded. This means that matter, or we could say, the world, just is as it is, changing because of mechanical, that is causal processes. But there is now direction in that process, not a necessary goal it is steering at."Nothing can arise out of nothing" is an interesting thesis because of its implications. It leads to a number of metaphysical riddles. One is: there never was a creation. Do we have to conclude that there was never a beginning?How do we have to understand the Big Bang from this perspective? Is our mind in any way able to understand the concept of Beginning?When you look at the history of materialism you see, that this kind of thinking was suppressed for almost 1500 years. Religious thinking, in this case christianity, was so dominant and powerful, that materialism was just a heresy and good for the stake.From the close of the classical period until the Renaissance the church and Aristotle so dominated European speculation that materialist theories virtually lapsed.Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), who in the last part of his life taught astronomy at the Royal College in Paris, was the first one who brought materialism back in the spotlights.But he still needed a trick. To bring his materialist ideas into closer conformity with Christian doctrine, he claimed that the atoms are not eternal but created. They are finite, not infinite, in number and are organized in our particular world by a providential determination of initial conditions.In England Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was much more consistent and uncompromising. Hobbes hoped to use the new non-Aristotelian physics of the seventeenth century as the basis for a final, complete account of reality.No part of the universe is not a body, said Hobbes, and no part of the universe contains no body.Hobbes was a plenist, holding all space to be filled by an intangible material ether if nothing else.And then Descartes stepped in. The influence of Gassendi and Hobbes was diminished by the prestige of their brilliant contemporary, ReneDescartes (1596–1650), who accepted a materialist and mechanical account of the inanimate world and the brute creation but insisted that men had immaterial, immortal spirits whose essential nature lay in conscious thought undetermined by causal processes.According to Descartes, there are in the world two quite different sortsnof things, extended (material) substances and thinking (spiritual) substances, which are mysteriously united in the case of humankind.So, after the Middle Ages, which was a dark period for materialism, we now got stuck for another 300 years with the dominance of Dualism, which was politically much more correct than monism.The Discussion[2011/06/23 13:25] herman Bergson: to be continued ....thank you :-))[2011/06/23 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok[2011/06/23 13:26] Mick Nerido: Care to speculate how the Greeks came up with Monism with no tech to hepl them discover it?[2011/06/23 13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): all conflicting as usual[2011/06/23 13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how could Leucippus and Democritus know that there were things like atoms?[2011/06/23 13:27] herman Bergson: That is what I find so fascinating Mick[2011/06/23 13:27] herman Bergson: I have no idea how they could develop such a model of reality...[2011/06/23 13:27] Mick Nerido: The GREEKS HAD MANY GODS[2011/06/23 13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): those philosophers knew more than we give them credit for[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): as far as the physical world goes[2011/06/23 13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma.....but the idea of atoms....[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i know :-)[2011/06/23 13:28] herman Bergson: First they thought all was composed of earth , air , water and fire[2011/06/23 13:28] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[2011/06/23 13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but maybe their idea of atom is different from the microscopic atom[2011/06/23 13:28] Mick Nerido: Yes there philosophers were like scientists[2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: the elements yes[2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah![2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: the word atom mean unsplitable[2011/06/23 13:29] Bejiita Imako: but later we found out thats not the case either[2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and then guess what!![2011/06/23 13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yep[2011/06/23 13:30] herman Bergson: Well...just the belief that all things were composed of small particles and just become what they are by configuration of the particles...[2011/06/23 13:30] herman Bergson: and not by properties of the particles themselves[2011/06/23 13:31] Mick Nerido: Very strange that they came to this theory with no tech...[2011/06/23 13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[2011/06/23 13:31] herman Bergson: I have no idea why their reasoning went in such a monist direction[2011/06/23 13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Mick the more you think about it the more fascinating it becomes[2011/06/23 13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: But it is the work of the human mind.....[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: There is however a consequence......[2011/06/23 13:32] herman Bergson: more than 2500 years ago there was amodel of reality implanted in our thinking....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: we still use that model.....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: I would say basically for pragmatic reasons...[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: But when it comes to the mind.....[2011/06/23 13:33] herman Bergson: the model isnt complete....[2011/06/23 13:34] Tauto Resident: I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but[2011/06/23 13:34] Tauto Resident: Guess what is called the prototype of the model do?[2011/06/23 13:35] Mick Nerido: The Greeks were great theorists inventing Geomerty etc...[2011/06/23 13:35] herman Bergson: Yes.....quite different from what they now are ^_^[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: y[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: the saying[2011/06/23 13:35] Bejiita Imako: already the old greeks[2011/06/23 13:35] herman Bergson: Well Tauto....[2011/06/23 13:36] Mick Nerido: Mathematics had a lot do do with their thinking[2011/06/23 13:36] herman Bergson: the basic model of reality is that it is constructed out of small particles[2011/06/23 13:36] (tauto): i just can't follow as fast as and as acurate all.[2011/06/23 13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes[2011/06/23 13:36] herman Bergson: The interaction between brain and environment has created that idea...[2011/06/23 13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is this old idea true?[2011/06/23 13:37] herman Bergson: That is the point Beertje....You CAN ask that question.....[2011/06/23 13:38] Mick Nerido: perhaps we instinctivly reflect the true material world in our brains[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: and when it comes to the mind....seen from a materialist point of view you have a problem...[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: all that exists is matter....ok[2011/06/23 13:38] herman Bergson: this matter.....our brain chemistry is than said, produses the mind....[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: is the mind material too?[2011/06/23 13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmm[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: If not what isit then?[2011/06/23 13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and if it's true..can we re arrange it?[2011/06/23 13:39] herman Bergson: Is it a feature of the brain chemistry[2011/06/23 13:40] Tauto Resident: Many psychologists are still other kinds of brain and mind can believe that.[2011/06/23 13:40] herman Bergson: like liquidity is a feature of H2O molecules?[2011/06/23 13:40] herman Bergson: We still have a long way to go to get these questions answered[2011/06/23 13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[2011/06/23 13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): maybe another 2500 years...[2011/06/23 13:41] Bejiita Imako: is an interesting question indeed whaqt makes up the mind[2011/06/23 13:41] herman Bergson: Oh we will have a lot of fun with that question Bejiita :-)[2011/06/23 13:41] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL[2011/06/23 13:41] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): over and over[2011/06/23 13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma ......[2011/06/23 13:42] Tauto Resident: I have to wonder. For example, brain damage or remove any part make them human morality says about whether to have.[2011/06/23 13:42] Mick Nerido: lucky the greek ideas were not lost...[2011/06/23 13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): how many classes are we up to now[2011/06/23 13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): strange thing..that some protein can influence the mind..like Alzheimer[2011/06/23 13:42] herman Bergson: But I yet believe that by the end of this project you really have a better understanding of the situation we are in[2011/06/23 13:43] herman Bergson: yes Beertje..and what you say Tauto.....[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: We only can say then that the Brain is the Mind[2011/06/23 13:44] (tauto): i wish i have exactly accurate translator.[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: such a thing doesn't exist Tauto....unfortunately[2011/06/23 13:44] Î∞©ÎûëÏûê (tauto): oh..[2011/06/23 13:44] herman Bergson: One of the big differences between the mind and acomputer....[2011/06/23 13:45] herman Bergson: A computer isn't able to give MEANING to words...[2011/06/23 13:45] herman Bergson: especially within a context...[2011/06/23 13:45] (tauto): i see.[2011/06/23 13:45] (taut): i try to write a exact word in english then.[2011/06/23 13:46] herman Bergson: The plane banks to the bank of the river to avoid crashing into the bank in mainstreet[2011/06/23 13:46] Mick Nerido: Greek word "nous" not translatable into English[2011/06/23 13:46] herman Bergson: Well...you could translate it as mind[2011/06/23 13:47] (tauto): ^^[2011/06/23 13:47] Mick Nerido: But not exact translated my point[2011/06/23 13:47] herman Bergson: But it included also the soul[2011/06/23 13:47] herman Bergson: no...I agree[2011/06/23 13:48] Mick Nerido: A great class, I must go thanks all for a stimulating discussion[2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye „ã° [2011/06/23 13:48] Î∞©ÎûëÏûê (tauto): bye Mick[2011/06/23 13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Mick[2011/06/23 13:48] herman Bergson: Bye mick...thank you too[2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL [2011/06/23 13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i wont see you til september[2011/06/23 13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu mick[2011/06/23 13:48] Bejiita Imako: very interesting for sure[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: Well....when Mick leaves....I cant hold you here any longer ^_^[2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): LOL[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: So...thank you all for your participation...[2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! [2011/06/23 13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for class[2011/06/23 13:49] Bejiita Imako: nice once again[2011/06/23 13:49] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-))[2011/06/23 13:49] (tauto): thank you herman and all.[2011/06/23 13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu[2011/06/23 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank You Herman..i have a lot to think about again:)[2011/06/23 13:50] herman Bergson: ok Beertje ^_^[2011/06/23 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye everybody...
