skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I think, that today is a good moment to repeat my basic assumptions in this project "The Mystery of the Brain". Not the mind but the brain. I formulated the title so deliberately.The basic assumptions are, that there exists only one thing: matter. The brain, which generates the mind, does not generate an immaterial something, called "the mind". The mind is somehow a feature of the brain like liquidity is a feature of water. Thus the brain is the cause of our "Supersense", which we discussed in the beginning.We have seen a number of neurobiological discoveries and insights regarding the functioning of the brain. The present subject, the basic emotions of the homo sapiens, focus on the fact, that he a biological being.This means that he is the result of evolution and as a species possesses general features, that you will find with any individual of the species.Most important to understand is, that the presence on this planet of the homo sapiens as we know it today, is in relation to 5 million years of evolution, still a pretty short period and do you think that we are the end of evolution?A second issue to keep in mind is, that the homo sapiens is inclined to believe, that its essence is defined by describing itself as a rational being.Our focus on the basic emotions, which helped the species through the evolutionary process, is one way to show, that this Self is a bit unbalanced. The ratio is just a part of our Self and we really can question the fact that it is our dominant feature.These are all not absolute facts, but my basic assumptions, my picture of the homo sapiens and its existence. I have proposed to assume the "truth" of these assumptions only for a pragmatic reason.It offers the opportunity to paint a specific picture, which we definitely will scrutinize with a magnifying glass in the near future, when we'll ask the real philosophical questions about what we see in the painting.But before we do that there are still some interesting subjects to discuss regarding our brain activity. In this case the emotion of disgust.In the previous lecture I said "as far as we know, you only find this emotion in the repertoire of the homo sapiens", but I have discovered other sources.The name connected with the emotion of disgust is Paul Rozin (born 1936). He is a psychology professor at the University of Pennsylvania. His current work focuses on the psychological, cultural, and biological determinants of human food choice.In an article in PENN Arts & Science, fall1997, we read this:"Disgust evolves culturally," explains Rozin, "and develops from a system to protect the body from harm to a system to protect the soul from harm." At its root, disgust is a revulsion response -- "a basic biological motivational system" -- that Darwin associated with the sense of taste. Its function is to reject or discharge offensive-tasting food from the mouth (and/or the stomach),and its fundamental indicator, the "gape" or tongue extension, has been observed in a number of animals, including birds and mammals. In humans, the characteristic facial expressions of disgust that coincide with gaping include nose wrinkling and raising the upper lip, behaviors usually accompanied by a feeling of nausea and a general sense of revulsion. Together these behaviors and sensations facilitate the rejection of food that has been put into the mouth.(http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/fall97/rozin.html)This may sound a bit confusing, as is said that eventually disgust evolved into "a system to protect the soul from harm." Animals certainly haven't a soul as is meant here.But here we must make a clear distinction between a primary form of disgust, which solely has to do with spoiled food and -but this is questionable - with faces and other "products" of the human body,because it is quite well possible that we can interpret these as examples of the secondary form of disgust: disgust shaped and influenced by culture. Next lecture I'll dig into the disgusting details, which will elucidate this distinction. You don't need to come then…. ^_^The Discussion[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you ...[13:20] Doodus Moose: ... when disgust will be discussed :-)[13:20] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:20] BALDUR Joubert: grin you had a cat herman.. its facial expression is quite significvant when she is disgusted... don't need a p[13:20] herman Bergson: Well it is an amazing emotion....[13:20] BALDUR Joubert: psychologist to find out[13:21] BALDUR Joubert: so.. its much older than homo sapiens in evolution[13:21] herman Bergson: Next lecture will be disgusting fun ^_^[13:21] Bejiita Imako: well i guess all things that look taste and smell bad produce this feeling[13:21] Bejiita Imako: also a very interesting thing[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur…[13:21] BALDUR Joubert: yes..but why ?[13:22] herman Bergson: Tell me...[13:22] BALDUR Joubert: may i ask you a question herman...[13:22] Bejiita Imako: almost everything that decompose contain sulphur components and those in general smell very bad[13:22] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is it to protect our body agains spoiled food?[13:22] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think he meant feces not faces[13:22] Bejiita Imako: and what make us think that different things smell in just that way[13:22] herman Bergson: yes Beertje..that is the basic issue[13:22] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): making a show of disgust other that the repulsion of tainted food seems to be tantimonious to me[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but is it a feeling or an expression ari[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: when you say evolution and homo sapiens[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: for me homo s. is the result of an evolution[13:23] Bejiita Imako: guess that sulphur components smell bad have evolved into our senses cause stuff that decompose contain them and this is not good to eat[13:23] Bejiita Imako: a warning indicator[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: result[13:23] Bejiita Imako: sort of[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i get a feeling of disgust at certain statements[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): like certain channels on the tv when i am watching the news[13:23] Bejiita Imako: take h2 s for ex[13:23] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I suspect it is different from theprimal urge and more an expression of disapproval[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: which happened through australopectis ..steinheim etc[13:23] Bejiita Imako: this is the stuff that rotten eggs produce[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....that is an important observation![13:23] Bejiita Imako: H2S[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: how themselves were products of evolution[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur......what is your point?[13:24] herman Bergson: Hi Zinzi[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: so if homo sapiens is the result..changes are not evolutionary ..but development-- just like muscles develop so does the brain[13:24] Zinzi Serevi: hello..:)[13:25] Bejiita Imako: I guess if good things instead produced these components we might have been wired to feel a good smell from ex H"S and such things[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: smile i have finished:)[13:25] Bejiita Imako: a theory[13:25] herman Bergson: That is the point Bejiita...I don't think so...[13:25] herman Bergson: unless disgust is 100% culturally determined[13:26] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I think disgust at it's core is innate evolution, the rest has to be nurtured development[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: if it were 100% cultural animals won't show disgust[13:26] herman Bergson: It seems to be a biological feature of the organism...an animal or a homo sapiens[13:26] Bejiita Imako: cause its otherwise weird cause why does EVERYTHING that is bad produce this smelly stuff otherwise or have nature made it that way by itself so we shouldnt eat it[13:26] Bejiita Imako: the production of this stuff[13:27] Doodus Moose: or perhaps we've evolved to recognize something as "smelly" - when it might not be so bad to something else[13:27] Doodus Moose: (dogs, and what they do, for example)[13:27] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): how do we explain limburger cheese?[13:27] herman Bergson: well..keep in mind there are two things...[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: has to do with survival i think.. learn not to eat what can harm you:)[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:27] Bejiita Imako: ex rotten eggs shit compost ect[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i love it[13:28] Bejiita Imako: is bad for u and therefor smell bad[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: 1000 year eggs are delicatessen in china[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): limburger?????[13:28] herman Bergson: horrible smell Gemma!!!!!!![13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): but so so tasty[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but a lot of people love it[13:28] Bejiita Imako: smells like foot sweat EEEEEEEEEWWW[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes me[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes and I'll discuss that in the next lecture ^_^[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:28] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne) nods...[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yum[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): lol[13:29] Bejiita Imako: also we have something here in sweden called surströmming ( lit sour herring)[13:29] Bejiita Imako: basically rotten fish[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: limbutger in a train you can empty a compartment in no time and find a place to sit[13:29] herman Bergson: JUST HOLD ON FOR A MINUTE>>>[13:29] Bejiita Imako: fermented[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ;p;[13:29] Bejiita Imako: stink like hell i think[13:29] Bejiita Imako: lot of people love it[13:29] herman Bergson: PLZ....[13:29] Bejiita Imako: i wouldnt touch the stuff[13:29] Bejiita Imako: eeeew[13:29] herman Bergson: I HAVE A QUESTION...^_^[13:29] herman Bergson: Gemma...[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: lets listen...[13:30] herman Bergson: How do you know "Limburger"[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i am a very cosmopolitan eater[13:30] herman Bergson: Here it is called rommedoeke...[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: by going to limburg lol[13:30] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:30] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): well, the basis of bad smelling food being disgusting is not universal was my points not[13:30] herman Bergson: let her answer Baldur...[13:30] Zinzi Serevi: yes a rommedoeke! :)[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): universal tastes[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes to some degree it seems[13:31] Bejiita Imako: my mom ex loves this "surströmming"[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): like 'nonnevotte?'[13:31] herman Bergson: Where did you tatsed Limburger Gemma?????[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): lots of times[13:31] herman Bergson: ?????[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we have very good cheese shops in connecticut[13:31] herman Bergson: Been in the area???[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): import cheeses[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): from all over the world[13:31] Zinzi Serevi: wow[13:31] herman Bergson: Wow.....lol...so cool[13:31] Bejiita Imako: but its general name is limburger right?[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh yes[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): even Limburgse kaas??[13:32] Bejiita Imako: thats also how i know the stuff[13:32] herman Bergson: AMAZING!!!!!![13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i do not go get it every week[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): once in a few years i have it somewhere[13:32] herman Bergson: And this only because we are discussing Disgust...[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:32] herman Bergson: that cheese smells so awfull..[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you're whole fridge wil smell bad...[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i can get past the smell[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I believe also it is a cultural thing as to what food odores are offensive[13:33] herman Bergson: yes Gemma![13:33] Ciska Riverstone: yes ARistotle[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): my brain says it still tastes good[13:33] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne): .me nods[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh Yes Aristotle....[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: we can learn to eat[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: culture is full of weird things[13:33] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that next time![13:33] BALDUR Joubert: thoughts[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i have friends who cannot stand the smell of garlic!!!![13:33] Doodus Moose: :-/[13:33] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thye eat a decaye fish sauce in south east asie robusly that made me ill to smell it[13:34] herman Bergson: LOVE IT!!![13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): asia*[13:34] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:34] herman Bergson: The more th ebetter[13:34] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:34] Bejiita Imako: sounds like our surströmming[13:34] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): oh i lóve fish sauce[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: hm..how about the saying when with some one ..i can't smellhim/her?[13:34] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Noc Mam/[13:34] Zinzi Serevi: trassi[13:34] Bejiita Imako: never tasted that later stuff from asia, doesn't seem to tasty for my taste however[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but othervise I love asian food[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it is usually texture that repulses me[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): not smell[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): like sweet breads[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): phooey\[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): and something innately disgusting besides bad food is offensive body odor[13:35] herman Bergson: Well....I guess this lecture didn't end up disgusting at all ^_^[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: beertje.. you from a seaside country..go live in the alps:)[13:35] herman Bergson: Shall we exchange recipes?[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why should i?[13:36] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne) laughs[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): getting hungry as a matter of fact[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but I tink that is a protective impluse[13:36] Jerome Ronzales: greetings \o_[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: seafood could disgust you ...[13:36] herman Bergson: lol YEs me too...[13:36] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne) nods[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): not at all Baldur[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...I think we'll wait for the next lecture then...[13:36] herman Bergson: It will kil your appetite ^_^[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: smile..cause you didn't grow up there..[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hmm one thing that is a bit disgusting wen raw but otherwise really tasty is fiish[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: ol[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: ok trout is ok for us[13:37] Bejiita Imako: cause when raw extract some horribly smelling compound[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): great then I will fix me a limburgere and sardine sandwich[13:37] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne): Is it really a matter of culture or a matter of taste or does culture dictate your taste?[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: put some straberry on your sandwich ari[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Melody, I know that I love my mothers cooking above all else[13:38] herman Bergson: house[13:38] Zinzi Serevi: culture dictates your taste[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok , my friends...[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: lady..of coure its culture ..in a wider sense[13:38] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne): I think culture then does dictate your taste to a degree...but then again my whole family may like something that still I find to be disgusting...then it is a matter of my taste[13:38] Jerome Ronzales: i love tricks[13:38] herman Bergson: since we have ended up in the cuisine..I think it is time to leave for th ephilosopher..[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): :)) Thanks you Professor[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): also depends if your taste buds like sweet or savory[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i love savory[13:39] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation...it was great..[13:39] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: lol what is the philosopher cooking:)[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I like most all foods[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ^_^[13:39] Zinzi Serevi: lol[13:39] Bejiita Imako: interesting once again ㋡[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): would rather have another pizza piece and no dessert[13:39] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne) blushes...."sorry I was late, had to pick up the teenager"[13:39] Bejiita Imako: nened to get some pan pizza later[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, substance before desserts Gemma, me too[13:39] herman Bergson: This was really a fun discussion :-)[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i'll go and eat a 'haring'[13:39] Bejiita Imako: haha yes[13:39] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne): Sounds liek I missed a great class...lol[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yep[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yum yes[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: viva italia gemma .. the origing of culture...[13:40] Bejiita Imako: not a "sour herringt" i hope[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): more a cooking class[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: enjoy it Beertje ;)[13:40] Bejiita Imako: loool[13:40] Melody Jayne (ladyjayne): lol[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: i love herring beertje:)[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): me too[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): a RAW herring Bejiita[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): with unions[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): pickled??[13:40] Zinzi Serevi: i will go and eat some drop[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: especially after a longh nicht with many drinks:)[13:40] herman Bergson: YES..Beertje![13:40] Zinzi Serevi: see you all..:)[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): zenzi[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ok cu[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: Cu Zinzi[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone :)[13:41] herman Bergson: Bye Zinzi[13:41] Doodus Moose: be good Zinzi[13:41] Doodus Moose: byeeee Ciska
Let me draw you the picture again for you to elucidate the grand scheme of the project "The Mystery of the Brain".The basic assumption is, that the mind is in fact a biological phenomenon which is one way or the other caused or generated by the brain.As a first step we have seen how the brain generates a "Supersense", an intuitive interpretation of reality, which leads to all kinds of supernatural explanations, that defy any laws of physics and are hard to accept as the right explanations.In the second step we visited a number of results of research on the brain, which showed us the relation between physically observable brain activity and what you could call 'mental states':observations about hearing voices, experiencing the presence of a ghost or something like that, experiencing pain is an amputated limb, serious changes in personality because of partial brain damage and so on….Our present step tries to show us how much, especially since Descartes (1576 - 1650), philosophers and scientists have contributed to the overestimation of the human ratio.By digging into the evolutionary backgrounds of the brain we must conclude that the homo sapiens only uses his rationality partially. A lot of times we put our rationality on hold and have our behavior controlled by basic emotions.An emotion is drive that alerts a number of behavioral systems to direct all actions to solve a problem. Like fear makes use run for danger and grief makes us look inward to reconsider the purpose of our life.In the discussion after the lecture on grief Kyra made the remark, that I made it look all so positive. Of course no one will agree on the idea that grief is a positive feeling,but we are analyzing the basic emotions, which are found among, I think, all primates and at least among all humans, from an evolutionary point of view.The basic assumption is then, that the emotion in question must have had a positive function with respect to our survival as human beings. From that point of view it can't be denied that grief must have had a positive effect on the chances of survival. Just take the effect of strengthening social bonds in a group.But of course, the basic emotions, which we all share, are not 100% biologically explicable anymore, like we can explain them in such a way in the behavior of animals as always recurring behavioral patterns.Our emotions are deeply immersed and shaped in culture too. Emotions are not pure and singular. They are most of the time a mix like joy sometimes is accompanied by tears or grief by pride (when offering the life of your child to the gods was was regarded as a great honor).Yesterday I was a guest speaker and lectured on the theme: experiencing jealousy in SL. From a biological point of view this seems to be a rather odd feeling here, but from a psychological point of view I guess not.Jealousy was in the early days of homo sapiens a complex emotion based on fear. It had everything to do with reproduction, survival and delivering genes.If you look at the picture of the brain to my left of me, I can tell you that the whole part with those twists has evolved much later in evolution than the part of the brains that control fear. These coils and twists however provide housing for our ratio i particular.The man raises his reproductive success with causing many conceptions with females, the wife by pursuing a high quality partner.A very fundamental difference in reproductive strategies, which in the course of evolution have developed side by side, within one species that is.The danger for the man is in the sexual action of his woman with another man, the danger for a woman is the emotional bond of her man with another woman. She needs his help in raising her kids to offer them a reasonable chance to survive.Mind you, I'm talking about our ancestors. Natural selection should have a defense system designed to counteract these dangers.This mechanism is a system where the behavior and actions of the partner are checked to ensure that they minimize contact with someone of the opposite sex.We call the driving emotion, which directs many actions in one direction (partner hold!) an emotion, namely sexual jealousy. Actually it would be more appropriate to call it relational (genes) control.This has led to a difference in jealousy between husband and wife. As a simple illustration: murder in the relational sphere due to jealousy is predominantly by men. The number of women, for this reason, that commit murder is negligible in comparison.This is what we have inherited from our evolutionary past. Genes are important direction givers, but you will understand that this behavioral system now also strongly is shaped by culture.And that culture is here now the culture of Second Life. . From an evolutionary standpoint jealousy in Second Life is a remarkable thing. There is no link with our genes or procreation. Yet this basic emotion occurs here. Now, for the protection of pixels, which we have become attached to, it seems or should I say, the person behind the pixels or only the mind behind the pixels?Maybe this demonstrates how emotions, being so basically evolutionary, also are embedded in ideas created by our culture: romantic ideas about everlasting love and affection. Didn't you never read in a profile: "You are the man of my life. I'd rather die than leaving you, ….." ?The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you.....^_^[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark...the floor is all yours..[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: thank you..:)[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: i said enough yesterday..;P[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: herman..max frisch -swiss writer -in his memories cites:[13:24] herman Bergson smiles at Zinzi[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: eifersucht ist die angst vorm vergleich[13:24] itsme Frederix: Oke, I guess that jealous in SL is not that remarkable, its just that you can experience an other is more successfull in whatever you share so ..[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: jealousy is the fear of being compared[13:24] Jerome Ronzales: its all comedy at the end[13:25] itsme Frederix: Baldur thats what I mean[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: this is i think expressing the basic evolutionary problem and the culturalas well[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur...that could be the case in SL[13:25] Bejiita Imako: id say its fear about competition from another[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: so sl or rl its the same fear[13:25] itsme Frederix: comparing genes in a more abstract way[13:25] Bejiita Imako: that risk taking over[13:25] Bejiita Imako: what you have[13:25] Mick Nerido: The more SL resembles RL the more jealously will be felt[13:26] herman Bergson: of course RL and SL are the same in this...for it is us at the keyboard...RL persons...[13:26] herman Bergson: Indeed Mick...that is the quintessential point[13:26] itsme Frederix: Again some nomencaltuur, both are RL better mention them first/second life[13:26] CONNIE Eichel accepted your inventory offer.[13:26] CONNIE Eichel: :)[13:27] itsme Frederix: virtuality is experienced so is real[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: well feelings as we all know are created by pictures and words[13:27] herman Bergson: hmmmm.....[13:27] Mick Nerido: Real but not the same[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: movies.. playboy.. and thousands of sites on the net selling sex[13:28] herman Bergson: Psychologically it is real in the sense that one individual engages himself in this SL experience[13:28] itsme Frederix: But to stay with Herman and the topic: I agree with the words of Baldur[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: how can they make money if not appealing to real feelings ...[13:28] Mick Nerido: Someone said men fall i love with their eyes women fall in love with their ears[13:29] herman Bergson smiles[13:29] herman Bergson: Might be true Mick ^_^[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: you're a lucky man mick...[13:29] herman Bergson: so know your langaues ^_^[13:29] Bejiita Imako: aa yes there is really no difference, Sl is just a virtual interface for real people to meet wherever they might be[13:29] itsme Frederix: Herman what else is there psychological now you make it al biological by an organic brain raising mind.[13:30] herman Bergson: biology and psychology are just two languages describing the same reality...[13:30] herman Bergson: like physics and chemistry do...[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: think before we analyse jealous[13:31] itsme Frederix: So what do you mean then with "Psychologically it is real in the sense that ..." that does not add something[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: sorry stuck with kb[13:32] herman Bergson: I meant ..as an inner experience Itsme..as a feeling[13:33] Jerome Ronzales: there is a big lack between what you enhance like a good thing and the bad thing, speaking in the brain damage control status, so if the good feeling are enhanced it leads to a premeditated bad feelings or some sort of...[13:33] Ludwig John new whispers: Owner say /chat or touch me[13:33] herman Bergson: what do you mean Jerome[13:33] Jerome Ronzales felt i could add this[13:35] Jerome Ronzales: basically I'm defending the yin-yang theory applied to the brain functions[13:35] herman Bergson smiles[13:35] itsme Frederix: please explain..[13:35] Mick Nerido: You stated the mind created the brain?[13:35] herman Bergson: nice subject for a new project on comparative philosophy between the East and the West ^_^[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes MIck....[13:36] herman Bergson: I also can tell you that we don't know how....[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa[13:36] itsme Frederix: excuse me, the mind the brain or the brain the mind?![13:36] herman Bergson: But the best philosophical explanation I have heard was by John Searl....[13:36] druth Vlodovic: high emotional states are obviously a positive force in producing or raising kids or they wouldn't be so intense[13:36] Mick Nerido: It seem counter intutive[13:37] herman Bergson: Oh sorry Mick I misread....[13:37] herman Bergson: no...the brain creates the mind....the mind emerges from the biological processes of the brain![13:38] itsme Frederix: What is Daniel Dennett saying, he worked a long time and intensive on brain/mind and Darwin[13:38] Mick Nerido: Yes i agree:)[13:38] itsme Frederix: THX Herman, we have to use the right words and logic[13:38] herman Bergson: no ...was just a simple misreading....[13:39] herman Bergson: But we'll certainly get to the relation brain - mind - consciousness!!![13:39] herman Bergson: It is a HOT topic![13:39] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:39] Bejiita Imako: can imagine ㋡[13:39] Jerome Ronzales: there is a recurrent error in male/female where their brains react as if one is the ying and the other the yang, leading to a bad formation of the brains individuality disregarding many of the brain parameters and capabilities[13:39] Bejiita Imako: indeed[13:39] Mick Nerido: The brain is hardware mind is software[13:39] herman Bergson: Oh yes Bejiita ^_^[13:40] herman Bergson: So I am carefull about it before I burn my fingers on it ^_^[13:40] itsme Frederix: being conscious about your mind is most impressive, and recurrent[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:41] herman Bergson: let's discuss that later , Itsme...as I said..I don't want to burn my finger right now already ^_^[13:41] itsme Frederix: leading to a lot of miss interpretation of words on several layers[13:41] herman Bergson: as I said ^_^.... :-)[13:42] Mick Nerido: I think consciousness might be layered and not all or nothing[13:42] itsme Frederix: I just fiddle around the fire Herman, now it is not fed by your lectures[13:42] druth Vlodovic: if men become passive then they are of less use to providing/protecting offspring, making them less desirable mates[13:42] herman Bergson: No Itsme ..not yet....[13:42] herman Bergson: I keep my gunpowder dry for the time being ^_^[13:43] herman Bergson: Let's stick first to simple evolutionary biology....[13:43] itsme Frederix: Herman that the problem you use powder[13:43] itsme Frederix: I agree lets follow evolution[13:44] herman Bergson: ok....then....thank you all and let;s follow the advise of Itsme for th enext lecture....[13:44] itsme Frederix: So we got an organic brain creating something what is called/experienced as mind[13:44] herman Bergson: We'll discuss the emotion of RAGE then...[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...youare right....[13:44] herman Bergson: Let me give you Searle's answer.....[13:45] herman Bergson: may give you something to think about.....[13:45] herman Bergson: what is the relation between the brain and the mind?[13:45] herman Bergson: just listen Jerome...[13:46] Jerome Ronzales: imho rage its derived from other not observed feelings[13:46] herman Bergson: you also can ask the question ...what is the relation between water(molecules) and liquidity?[13:46] itsme Frederix: hmmm analogy[13:46] herman Bergson: you can't take out a dry or a wet water molecule....[13:46] herman Bergson: no no..Itsme..physics[13:47] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:47] herman Bergson: the configuration of the molecues...their being in a certain state creates liquidity....[13:47] Jerome Ronzales: so , u can observe rage from a dude but you don't know why or when he did been impelled to[13:47] itsme Frederix: dry and wet are sensibilities not physics, physics has gas/fluid/solid[13:48] herman Bergson: so..liquidity as a phenomenon only exists because of the state h2o molecules are in[13:48] Bejiita Imako: same goes a thing i use to wonder about, the particle beam in ex the LHC, if u hit something with them, would it be a solid substance like sand or like hit by a high pressure gas or something[13:48] herman Bergson: It is the same with the mind...[13:48] Mick Nerido: It's a function of tempature[13:48] Bejiita Imako: impossible to tell but id think most close to a solid[13:48] Bejiita Imako: but individual particles cant have a state[13:48] Jerome Ronzales: physics, i surrender[13:49] herman Bergson: it only emerges because of the state certain molecules in our brain ar ein....and I am talking about billions of molecules of course[13:49] Jerome Ronzales: i rest my case[13:49] herman Bergson: so like it is impossible to have liquidity without water molecules it is impossible to have a mind without a brain....[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa true[13:49] herman Bergson: there is one fundamental point more....[13:49] Mick Nerido: So the brain is a conscious state maker[13:50] Bejiita Imako: sort of same thing[13:50] herman Bergson: the molecules CAUSE a certain state....[13:50] herman Bergson: we have a mistaken idea of causation when we think that A causes B means that A and B are two distinct events...[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks! herman and class: -) Great lecture! :-) see u soon[13:51] itsme Frederix: I've to do some rethinking of Searle, thx Herman[13:51] herman Bergson: state A of H2o molecules cause B...liquidity....[13:51] Bejiita Imako: cu berg[13:51] itsme Frederix: If I understand Searle correctly, he says that the mind is a "feature" or the brain, just like hardness is a feature of a diamond. He then goes on to say that as a feature of the brain, the mind has causal powers, just like you could say the hardness of the diamond can be a causal explanation (for, say, what a piece of concrete does when a diamond-tipped drill is applied to it.) He points out lastly that a "hardness" is not a property of atoms or even individual molecules. Rather, it is a higher-level feature of a particular system of molecules. So too, the mind is a high level feature of the brain.[13:51] herman Bergson: a complete different way of causation.[13:51] herman Bergson: Don't do that Itsme...dumping text![13:52] herman Bergson: You know the rules here![13:52] itsme Frederix: I forgot, sorry was out of my mind BLAME the biological part of me which is causal condemned to do this[13:52] herman Bergson: You are excused Itsme....:-)[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you all for you participation....and good discussion...[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^[13:54] Jerome Ronzales: \o_[13:54] Jerome Ronzales: thx[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: great one :)[13:54] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman,[13:54] itsme Frederix: I'll do some rereading of Searle as homework/punismnet Herman. Allthough can ome be guilty - thats a tuff question today.[13:54] herman Bergson: I read your text itsme...and yes that is exactly how he meant it...[13:54] Jerome Ronzales: at least i arrived on time today[13:54] Mick Nerido: Very thoughtfull, thanks[13:55] Peli (peli.dieterle): tx herman[13:55] herman Bergson: llike liquidity is a higher level of organisation of h2o molecules[13:55] Peli (peli.dieterle): bye everyone[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: bye peli[13:55] Bejiita Imako: interesting subject again[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: see you all soon..:)[13:55] Vector Interactor v1.0: CONNIE Eichel bids Peli Dieterle farewell![13:55] CONNIE Eichel: oops, sorry particles[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye zin[13:55] herman Bergson: I LOVE paricles CONNIE!!!![13:55] CONNIE Eichel: hehe[13:55] CONNIE Eichel: are great for crashing[13:56] Bejiita Imako: o0r smashing, like i like to do[13:56] CONNIE Eichel: omg[13:56] Bejiita Imako: hehehe[13:56] Bilthor Esharham: Very interesting.....I m very impressed
In my lecture "272: Science and Supersense" I said: "Supersense helps us to understand the world, so that we are able to make decisions and choices that feel good. It helps us to feel united with others, that hold the same beliefs. (…)Science has become more and more the fundament of our knowledge of the world. Thence you would expect that it gradually would have replaced supernatural beliefs about our world.But it has not. And we have to face the question why people ignore what science has to tell us about supernatural beliefs. People just don't listen to scientists who say that supernatural beliefs make no sense at all.In spite of the tremendous amount of scientific knowledge, science does not seem to get any grip on supernatural beliefs. Even worse, some people even find science a pretty suspect business."-end quote-Science is often regarded as cold and impersonal. Regarding our supernatural beliefs it seems to take things away from us away. And what do we get substituted for it?According to the facts as stated in my former lecture you can cause religious like experiences by stimulating the temporal lobe by electro-magnetic field fluctuations.Temporal lobe epileptics show in their behavior exactly those traits which are so well known from religious zealots, and saints.Of course this doesn't apply to every person. It is like all human traits distributed over a whole population: some haven't the trait at all while other have it to the extreme, but the majority of the people are somewhere in-between the extremes.Last time I drew your attention to a particular Webpage. And it clearly shows what science does. Let me quote:Rutgers University evolutionary biologist Lionel Tiger thinks we can: “Religion is really made by the brain. It is a secretion of the brain,” says Tiger, who thinks the root of religious belief is an evolutionary drive to seek this "secretion"—namely serotonin—which provides the believer with feelings of well-being. A neurotransmitter that regulates mood and appetite, serotonin is linked to feelings of well-being when it floods the central nervous system. -end quote-Maybe this is why astrology and clairvoyance are often questioned with respect to their reliability and religious supernatural beliefs not.Religious beliefs have been there all the time of our evolution. The neurochemical response of religion serves a biological need for humans.But religiosity is not just brain chemistry. VMAT2 is a leading gene among many others written into our genetic code that predisposes people to religiosity. It was identified by geneticist Dean Hamer.From the webpage:Believing in God generates soothing "juices" in the brain that make us feel good, says Lionel Tiger. Scientists have identified the neurotransmitter serotonin, a network of neurons in the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes,and the gene VMAT2 as chemical, structural and genetic origin points that may be responsible for religiosity.Interest in where the brain and belief overlap has lead to the new field of neurotheology. Some cite new neurological research as confirming a completely organic, earthly origin to religion, independent of divine inspiration. Others say that while the research starts to explain religious experience and practice, religion itself is more than the sum of its experiences. -end webpage - http://bigthink.com/ideas/23960To conclude, an amazingly to the point quote from my newspaper of TODAY ! It is from a bookreview…and mark the title: " Free will does not exist." subtitle: "Who is really in control in our brain." by Victor Lamme.-quote-Whilst reading, I think of God. Previously taken for granted and everywhere. But for centuries in retreat, driven from every domain which science got a grip on. Would this become our human fate too?Step by step deprived of what is so uniquely human: freedom and responsibility? Despite the passion with which it is written, a cold wind blows through Lamme's book.-end quote.The Discussion[13:20] herman Bergson: So much for today...thank you...[13:20] BALDUR Joubert: nothing wrong with the assumption of tiger about feel good and serotonin.. but nothing but assumptions about religion and brain..and science -there i agree.. won't liberate serotonin..[13:21] herman Bergson: We have three belief-systems....[13:21] herman Bergson: scientific beliefs, religious beliefs and supernatural beliefs (like astrology and tarot etc.)[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: "neurotheology", sounds like the sound bite "intelligent design"[13:22] herman Bergson: May be Aristotle, but in fact it is a very bad name for what is means....[13:22] herman Bergson: there is no theology in it at all.[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: the Pope will have a fit[13:23] herman Bergson: It si what I described today...the neurobilological research on religious behavior and thoughts and feelings[13:23] herman Bergson: He certainly will send me to hell yes[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: religious and suoernatural is thge same..[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: where's the difference..[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hehe no worry I blast hiom with the LHC then a la Angels and Demons[13:23] herman Bergson: Theoretically yes Baldur but in our culture there is a difference[13:24] Chi Aho: Are brain secretions also the source of scientism?[13:24] Bejiita Imako: the pope say many wierd things[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: culture.. now we are getting closer..[13:24] herman Bergson: If you regard scientism as a religion..maybe Chi[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: so what is the connection between culture and religion[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: can one exist without the other?[13:25] herman Bergson: Well….Baldur…[13:25] Chi Aho: I see reducing religious experience to brain secretions as the pitfall of reductionism; doesn't help much[13:25] herman Bergson: the human being is a social animal...[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: true.[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: social and animal..[13:26] herman Bergson: to keep the group together supernatural ideas played an effective role in evolution...[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: not for animals[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: who have very complex social relationships..[13:26] herman Bergson: there are never religeous ideas or behavior observed by animals[13:26] Willful Guardian: we don't really know that, do we baldur?[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: could the 'feel good' folks get from religious belief sprout from a more Freudian see, such as the seed for Fatherly love?[13:27] herman Bergson: That is a psychological interpretation Aristotle...[13:27] herman Bergson: And Chi....your reductionism we'll discuss later[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: some faux rationalization maybe[13:28] herman Bergson: that is a complicated subject[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: a psychological interpretation is also a supernatural belief interpretation ..[13:28] herman Bergson: With supernatural we mean that it cant be tested and defies all natural laws Baldur[13:28] Chi Aho: To reduce peak experiences, awe, mystery, the sense of grandeur of the universe to "brain secretions" is to miss the whole point of such experiences[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: we can't leave religion to the neurologist alone:)[13:29] herman Bergson: Do these experiences have a point Chi?[13:29] Chi Aho: Self transcendence comes with identifying the self with the totality of the cosmos and the energy underlying it[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I seek to understand religion only to be able to defend myself from those whose promote it[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: with supernatural we -if we look at the brain-- it doesn't defy any law of nature.. if its origin is in the brain[13:30] Chi Aho: Maybe you don't need to do that herman, or maydbe you lack that awareness[13:30] herman Bergson: @Chi : that is a complex metaphysics you propose there...[13:30] Chi Aho: not at all[13:31] herman Bergson: What we know is that people in meditation can have the 'one with the cosmos' feeling...[13:31] Reyne Baroque: Have to go Herman - ty[13:31] herman Bergson: and when they have that feeling , neurobiologically it is observed that the parts of the brain that give us the spacial en temporal experiences are largely inactive[13:32] herman Bergson: yw Reyne[13:32] Chi Aho: The Contemplative apprehends spiritual experiences and states. Sometimes achieved through fasting, solitude, chanting, drumming, dance and yoga. Sometimes through quiet concentration, meditation and contemplation. Occasionally accompanied by peak experiences, as awe and mystery are sensed, in this state we seek interior illumination. It is in this state that the gap between the objective and the subjective dissolves. Clarity of awareness arises. There is a self-transcendence, an identification of the self with the totality of the cosmos and the spirit or energy underlying it. (See pp. 137-8 in Ken Wilber, The Eye of Spirit).[13:32] herman Bergson: dont do this Chi...I am sorry to say....read the rules behind me...[13:32] Chi Aho: You see herman, it isn't all science or atheism[13:32] herman Bergson: but you are excused[13:33] herman Bergson: I have no idea what self-trancendence means[13:33] Chi Aho: you prove my point then[13:34] herman Bergson: besides that the concept of the Self is a philosophical question[13:34] Chi Aho: its like someone who doesn't know what empiricism is[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: interior ilumination chi?[13:34] Chi Aho: Yes, an understanding of who you are, Baldur[13:34] herman Bergson: what is your point Chi?[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: clayrity arises something absolute?[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: :) the cosmos is spinning around me, the pivot...it is very comforting to be its center[13:35] Chi Aho: My point is that anyone who reduces these experiences to "brain secretions" lacks some really vital knowledge and experience himself.[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: smile ari.. we are all -as individuals.. the center..[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed Baldur[13:36] herman Bergson: But that is an argument ad hominem where the speaker claims to have a better knowledge of reality which he doesnt proof[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa true[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: chi.. what vital knowledge..something universal and absolute?[13:36] Chi Aho: I am not the only one with this viewpoint, herman[13:37] herman Bergson: It is a typical claim of people who have a well defined (religious) belief and claim that their belief is the only true and right belief[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: quantity doeswn't proof quality chi..[13:37] herman Bergson: To refer to 'others think so too' is not a philosophical argument but a social or cultural or religious argument[13:38] Rodney Handrick: that true[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: third reich argument chi[13:38] herman Bergson: In the philosphical discourse you try to establish the truth value of a statement[13:38] Willful Guardian: has someone reduced religion simply to nothing but brain secretions?[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it smacks too much of democracy being the truth validator[13:38] herman Bergson: that is only possible when the statement can be tested...[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: wanted to ask the same, willful[13:38] Chi Aho: Only empirical knowledge is valid?[13:39] herman Bergson: No Willfull[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: well chi.. its a basis we can agree on.. doesn't exclude other possibiliteis[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: we alone validate presented empirical data as true or false[13:39] herman Bergson: Only statements that can be tested on their truth value are admissible in a debate....[13:40] Chi Aho: How about the whole realm of logical thinking, theories, philosophical systems???[13:40] herman Bergson: If someone has a method to demonstrate the occurence of sef-transcendence, after having defined the concept, it is a valid argument in the philosophical debate[13:41] Chi Aho: You should read Ken Wilbur, The Eye of Spirit[13:41] Rodney Handrick: I'd like to know[13:41] Chi Aho: read his book[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: if you have proof that tranc[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes that is what everyone says...you should read that or that book...[13:41] Chi Aho: yes, read it[13:42] herman Bergson: Be it the Koran or the Bible or Blavatsky etc.[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: trancendendce thinking is not subject to a brain activity.. logical thinking and theories.. we will listen chi[13:42] herman Bergson: Religion is not reduced to brain secretions at all...[13:42] Chi Aho: Scientism, the ideology that only empirical knowledge is valid, is narrow and distorted[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: reading is important, but you need a baskets on each side of you as you read...one for jewels and one for trash[13:43] herman Bergson: With all due respect Chi....[13:43] herman Bergson: it is ok to say that something is narrow and distorted...[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: narrow and distorted may be chi.. but not something we can ignore[13:43] herman Bergson: but that is not interesting and begging the questions[13:44] herman Bergson: what you have to show is that it is the case[13:44] Willful Guardian: is the subject today the role of neuroscience in relation to religion?[13:44] Chi Aho: I said that scientism, the ideology that only empirical knowledge is valid is a distorted view and a narrow view[13:44] herman Bergson: but that is a completely different debate[13:44] herman Bergson: this leads to a debate on epistemology...[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: yes Willful[13:44] Willful Guardian: oh, then I'm confused...[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes....[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: we diverge sometimes[13:45] herman Bergson: the issues of today are...first..[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: lol[13:45] Willful Guardian: ah, I see...[13:45] Chi Aho: You see Willful, mystical experiences are due to epileptic seizures[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: lol[13:45] herman Bergson: That it looks like that science takes away a lot of our supernatural ideas...[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: that's sh....[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect what a seizure creates can be interpreted in many ways[13:46] herman Bergson: Second...that religious experiences can be provoked by stimulating the brain or be observed by Temporal lobe epileptics[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: the development- not evolution. of culture is at the basis of religios ideas[13:47] herman Bergson: but Baldur culture is re result of the activities of an organism with a brain[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: I find it very interesting that Muhammed was an epileptic, I supect Paul was too[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes he has the symptoms Aristotle....[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: yes.. but not of epilepsy:)[13:48] herman Bergson: We never can prove it however[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: he fell down stricken on the Road to Damascus[13:48] Rodney Handrick: you're referring to Saul of Tarsus?[13:48] herman Bergson: It is a conjecture that he is describing an epileptic seizure...[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: yes[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: why not because the brain - starting to observe and think-.and communicate with others.. is just confronted with forces which it can't explain..[13:48] Bejiita Imako: I see[13:49] herman Bergson: at least..the symptoms canbe observed today with real patients[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: and forces.. power.. is a basic necessity ina social community..[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: makes one question historians[13:49] Willful Guardian: well neuroscience might describe the physical substrate of religious experience, without fully explaining the experience itself of course[13:49] Chi Aho: right, Willful[13:49] herman Bergson: If that invisible force were there Baldur....who could we have knowledge of it[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: right will.. describe. they should be careful with conclusions..[13:50] Rodney Handrick: I'm still looking for a Jedi master...[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: interesting thought Willful[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: a lighning which kills me[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: me of the group?[13:50] herman Bergson: Well Willful to answer your question....[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: you are the Jedi master Rod[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: that wee have knowledge of.. but can't explain..[13:51] herman Bergson: the mind is just a feature of the brain....[13:51] Rodney Handrick: HA HA HA HA HA[13:51] Bejiita Imako: „ã°[13:51] herman Bergson: so experiences are just the results of that feature..[13:51] herman Bergson: the mind is not something that has other experiences than the brain[13:51] herman Bergson: ok..let me explain....[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: :) unless you are trilolgist like me[13:52] herman Bergson: when you have a glass of water....[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: right... without experience..-and communication with others.. to say a society.. no mind[13:52] herman Bergson: the water may be liquid.....[13:52] herman Bergson: but liquidity only exists as a feature of the way the water molecules are organized...[13:53] herman Bergson: thus ..the organisation of lower lever creates specific features.[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: so the interessting question is why do they organize like they organize[13:53] herman Bergson: you can not have water one the one hand and liquidity on the other hand[13:54] herman Bergson: that is simple to answer Ciska...[13:54] Bejiita Imako: the later is a property of the first[13:54] herman Bergson: molecules behave as they do based on the laws of nature...[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita but not in the Aristotelian sense[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:55] herman Bergson: thus the way the brain chemistry works create a specific feature what we call mind...[13:55] herman Bergson: without a brain and its material composition there is no mind[13:56] herman Bergson: like there is no liquidity without water molecules arranged in a specific way[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: :) a byproduct of biology?[13:56] herman Bergson: Well...that is a bit to fast Aristotle...[13:56] herman Bergson: Then you can call liquidity a byproduct of water molecules...[13:57] herman Bergson: which makes the qualification 'by=product' trivial[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: the mind and the brain, is like the chicken and the egg[13:58] herman Bergson: definitely not.....[13:58] herman Bergson: there is first the brain....[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: ahh, but how do you know for sure?[13:58] herman Bergson: and that has as a feature by its wiring and operation the mind[13:59] herman Bergson: because...when I remove my brain...my mind is gone too Aristotle[13:59] Chi Aho: prove it[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: I hear you argument and get the same from my daughter form her neurobiological classes[13:59] herman Bergson: You would love to see that, wouldn't you Chi ^_^[13:59] Willful Guardian: well, it's possible to have a brain without a mind, but not a mind without a brain[13:59] Chi Aho: Well, last dThursday you said "you are your brain"[14:00] herman Bergson: true Willful[14:00] AristotleVon Doobie: we think that only because of regimentation[14:00] Chi Aho: which is only YOUR OWN self-identification, not a statement of fact at all[14:00] herman Bergson: My thesis here is a materialistic one: we are our brain[14:01] Chi Aho: materialism is an ideology used to justify atheism[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: so we can be mind without a brain chi?[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: or whatever?[14:01] herman Bergson: It would be a bit extreme Chi, but I dare to say that when I would remove all brains from this globe, that there wouldn't be a single mind anymore[14:01] Chi Aho: It just may be that the whole cosmos is filled with consciousness[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: may be.. or might not be chi..[14:02] Chi Aho: and that scientists don't know the first thing about consciousness, as to what it is[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: may be i'm god..[14:02] herman Bergson: Those are supernatural statements Chi[14:02] Chi Aho: hogwash[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: I know I am god, Baldur[14:02] Willful Guardian: yes, but that is not a helpful point of view in this particular discussion, Chi[14:02] Willful Guardian: at least I'm not sure how it is[14:02] herman Bergson: We can't test them...you cant prove them..[14:02] herman Bergson: let alone that we know what consciousnesss is...[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: lol.. i knew all the time ari[14:02] herman Bergson: a hell of a philosophical problem these days[14:03] Chi Aho: Most of what is important cannot be proven by empirical research[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: :)[14:03] herman Bergson: and who decides what is important Chi? The Pope?[14:03] herman Bergson: You?[14:03] herman Bergson: Obama?[14:03] Chi Aho: Each person decides for him/her self[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: may be we should agree that there are two different approches to understand oneself and the world.. a scientific one and a spiritual one..[14:04] Chi Aho whispers: more than just 2[14:04] herman Bergson: You may say that Baldur...[14:04] BALDUR Joubert: lets talk about the scientific one here..[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: but the spirtual has to have an explanation, just like science[14:04] BALDUR Joubert: an other time about the contents of spirituality[14:05] herman Bergson: It is not about the content of the spiritual Baldur...[14:05] BALDUR Joubert: ari.. first lets try to understand what science knows.. and then integrate that knowledge if possible[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: otherwise 'why' s forbidden[14:05] herman Bergson: it is about the question ..how comes the spiritual into being[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Herman[14:05] herman Bergson: and to that we give a clear answer....by the working of the brain.[14:05] Chi Aho: We experience the spiritual through contemplation, herman[14:06] BALDUR Joubert: ok.. how about the lightning..[14:06] herman Bergson: there is only the brain....and what it generates as features[14:06] herman Bergson: That is not the issue here Chi[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: 'because I said so' is not proof.....data must be tendered[14:06] herman Bergson: The brain generates what we experience as spiritual[14:07] BALDUR Joubert: chi.. even contemplation needs a brain[14:07] herman Bergson: what behavior such experiences cause or how it functions in culture is not our discussion[14:07] Chi Aho: herman, did you not say the question was how the spiritual comes into being?[14:08] herman Bergson: that question is answered....it is produced by the wiring of the brain[14:08] Willful Guardian: the properties or capacities of the brain would constrain the experience of the spiritual[14:08] herman Bergson: no brain ...no spirituality[14:08] Chi Aho: of course not; if a person is dead he/she cannot have human experiences[14:08] herman Bergson: That Willful presupposes that the spiritual is something independent of the brain[14:09] herman Bergson: and there you are again with a kind of cartesian dualism[14:09] BALDUR Joubert: ancient egypt disagrees with you chi[14:09] Chi Aho: EVERYTHING we experience is a "product of the brain", so what does that prove?[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: 'capacities' is a good word to use[14:10] herman Bergson: Well...I think it is time to say that we still have a lot to debate...[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed we do :)[14:10] Bejiita Imako: ah „ã°[14:10] herman Bergson: and a lot of what we discussed now will return in further lectures[14:10] Bejiita Imako: yes[14:10] herman Bergson: So dont worry.....[14:11] herman Bergson: I guess it might be wise now to put our brains to rest a little ^_^[14:11] Bejiita Imako: hehe[14:11] herman Bergson: so Thank you for this great discussion[14:11] Bejiita Imako: ah[14:11] Willful Guardian: I don't know that it presumes it, as opposed to marking it off as a content or object of the brain's activity[14:11] BALDUR Joubert: not everything we experience is a product of the brain chi.. what we see for ex. is processed in the brain.. stored.. etc[14:11] Chi Aho: so?????[14:11] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you, Professor[14:12] Bejiita Imako: again very interesting [14:12] Willful Guardian: yes, thanks[14:12] Willful Guardian: indeed[14:12] herman Bergson: So....we'll continue next class[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: great![14:12] herman Bergson: Class dismissed[14:12] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman it was very interesting[14:12] Bejiita Imako: yay¬®'[14:12] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)[14:12] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all :)=[14:12] herman Bergson: For those who not know.....[14:13] herman Bergson: The basic premise of this project is that we are our brain and a materialist interpretation of reality[14:13] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman[14:13] herman Bergson: Nice you were here Rodney[14:13] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You Hermann- very interesting! thank you all[14:13] Willful Guardian: but perhaps then it is best to assume materialism for future discussions?[14:14] Willful Guardian: as opposed to debating it?[14:14] herman Bergson: Sure Willful.....that is the most logical thing to do...[14:14] herman Bergson: I should make a sign that explains our starting point[14:15] herman Bergson: so that very new participant understands out starting position in the debates
Let Bruce Hood do the talking here, the writer of "Supersense: Why we believe in the Unbelievable" (2009).As you see, it is a recent publication. A more radical kind of other member in the choir is "The God Delusion" (2006) by Richard Dawkins.What is going on these days is a development on which I wrote my thesis in 1977. And in those days by some people it was almost regarded as blasphemy: a materialist theory of the mind.In the past 25 years there have been a revolution in technology and science, in our case, neurobiology.This has enabled us to answer a lot of questions about the mind, or should I say , the functioning of the brain.On my desk I have a brand new book, written by a world-famous Dutch neurobiologist, Dick Swaab. The title of the book is most telling: WE ARE OUR BRAIN, from womb to Alzheimer.This is a confirmation of my initial philosophical stand as a young graduate in 1977. A confirmation. Epistemologically it means , according to Popper, that it makes my point of view only more probable, no true.To be honest, after this initial series of lectures on our subject "The Mystery of the Brain", I don't mind. On the one hand in 2010 there is such a plethora of confirming evidence.On the other hand, although there are many books written on the subject, there is so no really hard evidence for all that our supersense is able to generate.When a law of nature is falsified by scientific experiments, it is because we have formulated a law of nature that explains our observations and predictions much better.In the field of the supernatural, we never succeeded in proving the existence of (a) god. The very thought of a proof is almost disqualified as blasphemy and regarded as superfluous by a lot of people, which is most remarkable of course.The scientific research on the results of astrological interpretation came up with apparently significant observations, but yet still highly questionable.But , sorry Bruce, I began by saying that you would do the talking. Go ahead, you have the floor ^_^"IN THIS BOOK, I have proposed that humans are compelled to understand the nature of the world around them as part of the way our brains try to make sense of our experiences. This process starts early in childhood, even before culture has begun to tell children what to think. Along the way, children come up with all manner of beliefs about the world, including those that would have to be supernatural if true. These ideas go beyond the natural laws that we currently understand and hence are supernatural. Whether it is a disembodied mind floating free of the body, a sublime essence that harbors the true identity of people, places, and things, or the idea that people are all connected by tangible energies and hidden patterns, these notions are all intuitive ways of thinking about the world. We persist in these beliefs despite the lack of compelling evidence that the phenomena we think are real do in fact exist. Culture may fuel these beliefs with fantasy and fiction, but they burn brightly in the first place because of our natural inclination to assume “something there,” as William James put it. Culture simply took these beliefs and gave them meaning and content."Thank you, Bruce……….In the concluding lecture, that is only concluding on the theme of Supersense, we'll have a close look at his argument for his point of view.The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...feel free...[13:22] Osiris Malso: ty Sir[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i missed part bruce who[13:24] herman Bergson: Bruce Hood is the writer I referred to[13:24] herman Bergson: UK fellow[13:24] Simargl Talaj: I must disagree that any evidence for astrology is statistically significant. Differences among people can be sufficiently explained by other factors that only coincidentally correspond to astrological sign. People whose parents have certain characteristics tend to be born in certain months rather than ohters, so we are really seeing a parent effect I believe.[13:25] Bejiita Imako: there now i've catched up ㋡[13:25] Simargl Talaj: oop forgot the 17 word thing. That will be hard for me.[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: he mentions a time before culture takes the supersense and molds it, when is that?[13:25] Simargl Talaj: sorry[13:25] herman Bergson: Plz read the rules behind me Simargl[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman I thought maybe Hood[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: i think when we are only infants to 5 or 6[13:26] herman Bergson: Well...culture kicks in in education at a later age....maybe when you are 4 or older...[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes about that[13:27] herman Bergson: Before that children already show supernatural beliefs[13:27] Osiris Malso: hehe Simargl dont you turn your bed to east?[13:27] Simargl Talaj: Margaret Meade noted that children in Melanesia had fewer supernatural beliefs than adults. It took culture a long time to ingrain them.[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: if one were to accept this philosophy, then we would tav to admit the babies are not receptive of life until 4?[13:27] herman Bergson: So the inclination to hold supernatural beliefs is hardwired in our brain it seems[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: babies are self centerd individuals[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: the center of their universe until about 2 1/2[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: supersense is so nonsensical to me[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: everyone and thing is there for them[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Simargl you are right...[13:29] herman Bergson: But the frame of mind is wired thus that we only increase those beliefs the older we get...[13:29] Simargl Talaj: Infants and children learn most deeply whatever is connected to their sense of survival even counter to later actual needs for survival. Thus the "supernatural" (not materially supported) beliefs/attitudes of abused children.[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....to that nonsensical feature of Supersense we'll get next Thursday...[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: good LOL[13:31] Simargl Talaj: :)[13:31] Bejiita Imako: then if u tell a small children about well everything they believe it cause they dont know anything other yet, have no other facts,[13:31] Bejiita Imako: for example that santa claus comes down the chimney at christmas eve and so[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: I am confident tho that a child begins to absorb the world from day one[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...[13:31] Bejiita Imako: thats all they ve heard until they get more facts[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: yes ari they do[13:31] herman Bergson: with a basic mechanism…[13:31] Osiris Malso: yes i think so too[13:31] Bejiita Imako: also a thing[13:32] herman Bergson: To see structures and order in the plethora of sensory experiences[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: so if santa claus comes when they are 1 or 2 so what[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: but after 3 or 4 they believe[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: until they find out later[13:33] Bejiita Imako: I think i believed in that as well until i learned that hmm wait now i ve never seen or heard anyone come down the chimney or something like that[13:33] Osiris Malso: ok people bye se next time[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL, parents think Santa Claus is a good thing for their children to believe in, he is not much different from religion[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes funny to see how we educate our children with fairy tales and then later tell them..sorry all not true[13:33] Osiris Malso: by Sir[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly!!!!!!![13:33] Bejiita Imako: bye Sir[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Osiris[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:34] Osiris Malso: byee[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and then u find out theat santa is really your grandmother or grandfather or something[13:34] herman Bergson: See you soon Osiris[13:34] Bejiita Imako: in santa chothes[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: but before that was supersense of belief in him[13:34] Bejiita Imako: and why always they go buy the newspaper just before he comes?[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: I wonder if anyone ever thinks about the mistrust that these tales create[13:34] Bejiita Imako: when u start get that together[13:35] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle....relogion takes over there :-)[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: or is that intended even?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: never the .less santa has a place at christmas eve I think[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: yep[13:35] Bejiita Imako: adds to the correct setting[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: but again that is culture[13:35] Bejiita Imako: I use to be santa myself sometimes[13:35] Bejiita Imako: :[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:36] AristotleVon Doobie: I am guilty with my children of passing it on to them[13:36] herman Bergson: Well Bejiita ...I guess now you first need to see a doctor[13:36] Bejiita Imako: lol[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...next lecture we'll introduce rationality....[13:36] Bejiita Imako: Its really interesting this with supernatural believes[13:36] Bejiita Imako: same with ghosts and so[13:37] herman Bergson: as the opponent of supernatural beliefs...[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: great, I need some[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I ve never seen one but many claim they have[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I would like to be on the rationality team[13:37] Bejiita Imako: in old houses and so they really can hear strange stuff and so[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita....it will be a little diappointing I believe[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Aristotle..I think you should wait till next Thursday and then reconsider tour wish[13:38] Bejiita Imako: If they were kind i wouldnt have anything about it if they existed[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: okie dokie[13:38] Bejiita Imako: would be fun to really see one for once[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:39] Simargl Talaj: Herman, how would you like to focus the last few minutes here? I fear I have lost track of what is appropriate,[13:39] herman Bergson: Oh yes Bejiita....I'd really LOVE to see a real ghost...![13:39] Bejiita Imako: would be cool[13:39] herman Bergson: the intellectual and philosophical impact would be gigantic...[13:39] Simargl Talaj: (and religious)[13:39] herman Bergson: Same is even more true when there really landed a true alien on this planet[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:40] herman Bergson: that would kill God really, tho Nietzsche claimed that he is dead already[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: which is more possible , the alien or the ghost?[13:40] herman Bergson: I would say neither ogf both[13:40] Simargl Talaj: Why would it kill GOd? Religons allow for ghosts.[13:41] Simargl Talaj: a new religion would allow for both gods and ghosts.[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: wb Gemma[13:41] Bejiita Imako: wb gemma[13:41] herman Bergson: Sim..there is just one god ..one creation...one world....an alien would falsify that all[13:41] Simargl Talaj: and would have the advantage that half its theology was already demonstrated.[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: not necessarily[13:42] Simargl Talaj: ah, you meant aliens not ghosts. Again I disagree. Religon allows for aliens.[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: yes it does[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I could start a religion that believes in hobgobblins too, doent make any of it ture[13:42] Simargl Talaj: Hinduism includes the existence of multiple inhabited planets and Catholic theologians have discussed soberly the spiritual condition of aliens if they exist.[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: no but i bet you would have a lot of followers[13:42] herman Bergson: I am sorry, but chrisianity hardly accepted that the earth rotated around the sun[13:42] Simargl Talaj: The doctrine of "that anonymous christian" pertained, I believe.[13:43] herman Bergson: so how can it admitt aliens?[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman it has[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: easily[13:43] Simargl Talaj: It has acepted the solar system for quite a while now.[13:43] herman Bergson: Explain Gemma...:-)[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: depends on how it affects the collection plate[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: because they would be creatures of the same god they believe in[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: it is my understanding that the vatican has issued some documents allowing for that[13:44] herman Bergson: but that would mean that mankind left earth long time ago in space travel...?[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: not[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: Stargate?[13:44] Simargl Talaj: Universalists would have no trouble with it, and there are Christain Universalists. Buddhists would have no trouble with it. Hindus would have no trouble with it. And the Bible does not say that Earth is the only planet on which God created life, so even Fundamentalist Christians would probabaly survive.[13:44] Simargl Talaj: damn passed the 17 again, sorry. I'm trying.[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: they could have developed just as we did[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: odds are against it I think but it is possible Gemma[13:45] herman Bergson: Well we wont waist our time on such theological discussions....[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802629.htm[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: but aliens and ghosts are just like supersense, ...figments[13:46] herman Bergson: Because basically it presuposes the supernatural belief in a god...[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle..most likely[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: but I will gladly embrace them all if proven to me[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :_)[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: we all wil if they are proven :-)[13:47] herman Bergson: OH me too...I am still waiting for ET...[13:47] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, such a nice guy he was[13:47] herman Bergson: yes...[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: if they do exist they are too far away anyway[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: need time travel[13:47] Bejiita Imako: If my LHC could prove something like that to me as well, but Ill have to satisfy if they find the higgs there i guess[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...it seems so[13:48] Bejiita Imako: would be nice to know for sure[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:48] Bejiita Imako: are ghosts real are there something out there or not[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: just need another Jules Vern[13:48] Bejiita Imako: really curious[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:48] Simargl Talaj: What is our intended topic at this point? The supernatural beliefs of children, and the extent to which they arise independent of culture?[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: or Roddenb erry[13:48] Bejiita Imako: of all the musterious unknown things[13:48] Bejiita Imako: but i want proof before I bellieve it[13:49] herman Bergson: Well..I think we can conclude our session for today....[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:49] herman Bergson: The issue is clear...we all wait for ET ^_^[13:49] Bejiita Imako: Interesting as usual[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: bergie gave me the beginning[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aa me too,[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-))[13:50] herman Bergson: Or for a real ghost...which is of couse paradoxicall because ghosts aren't real
