357: The Brain and a look inside

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

283: The Biology of the Brain 2

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

269: Why do we believe in the supernatural?

Yesterday I was watching this picture viewer with a friend. It contains pictures I make of my Sl experiences with friends. At a certain moment the picture of Bergie showed up and the very second, that her picture appeared I received an IM…. yes from Bergie.

Isn't that odd ??!!! Do you recognize the experience? You are thinking of somebody and at that same moment the phone rings…..at the other end the person you were just thinking about.

We have great difficulty to believe that this is just coincidence… The psychologist Carl Jung even invented a word for this phenomenon (1920/1951): synchronicity.

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are apparently causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. To count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.

It was a principle that Jung felt gave conclusive evidence for his concepts of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history—social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual.

Here we are at the heart of our stand: when we read something like this… about synchronicity, we see the supersense at work. In other words, this is a supernatural concept, or to refrase that, it is scientific nonsense.

Why do people believe in things that defy the laws of nature? This cannot be pure ignorance. No….because many people say that they have proof for it. Just remember what I told you about my personal experience yesterday.


And yet there is nothing supernatural at work here. Such events we call coincidences, even tho we have trouble to accept that. Probably is our brain not properly equipped to deal with coincidences and is it inclined to see supernatural forces at work here.

This makes me think of the words by Bertrand Russell in his book "The problems of Philosophy" (1912):
"Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life."

Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers..

Maybe this is one of the reasons that our daily life is loaded with all kind of supernatural considerations. Small ones like "this can not be a coincidence!", while there is no causal relation between events. And big ones: all kinds of religious and esoteric beliefs.

The American philosopher and psychologist William James (1842 -1919) already noticed that a lot of people not only believe in the reality of existence but also in what is behind it or transcends it.

Something untangle, that is not directly observed by our senses. This 'more' eludes natural explanations. It is supernatural. In fact it is the basis of all religious beliefs.

Why are we so wiling to think in that way? A first explanation is that we are educated to think that way. Isn't it funny that we are first told that Santa really exists and when we get older they call you nuts if you still believe that.

But we have a point here… We were not born believing in astrology. We have learnt to believe in it. But that doesn't answer the question why we are so WILLING to participate in rituals and ceremonies.

An answer to that could be: there is something in it for us: by believing supernatural things we can participate in society. Beliefs unite people.

But if culture is the sole source of supernatural beliefs,then we have to stop telling our children all that supernatural nonsense and educate them with scientific thinking.

Or like Richard Dawkins writes in "the God Delusion" (2006): "If you feel trapped in the religion of your upbringing, it would be worth asking yourself how this came about. The answer is usually some form of childhood indoctrination."

There is another explanation for our WILLINGNESS to believe in the supernatural. Even if the main source would be only culture we are still left with the question WHERE emerged the first supernatural beliefs???

And an other anthropological observation is that many (isolated) cultures cherish all kinds of supernatural ideas and beliefs.

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 as an example of a sentence with correct grammar (logical form) but semantics that are nonsensical.

It shows that the grammatical structure is nor enough to communicate ideas. Ideas have to fit into an existing context to be understood. For a lot of people scientific ideas and explanations are hard to understand.

On the other hand supernatural explanations and ideas are way more easier to accept, it seems. Like the grammatical correctness of a sentence is not enough to give it a meaning, so is culture and education not enough to explain the meaning of the supernatural.

For that explanation we have to look at the design of our mind, which we will do next Thursday. Thank you.


The Discussion

[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have questions or remarks..plz geo ahead
[13:23] herman Bergson: Well I guess all was clear then ^_^
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm interesting concept for sure this
[13:23] Beertje Beaumont: i'm not that fast in reading english..
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: everyone is looking at your pictures I would guess, Prof ㋡
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:24] herman Bergson: lol...you could be right Repose..
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: what you said in the beginning have also happened to me many times
[13:24] Quizzle Mode: Are these beliefs a way that people seek meaning in (or to) life? Is it that humans have a need to "make sense of the world"? and we fall to superstition when science doesn't or can't answer.
[13:24] Jozen Ocello: i like what you said about "Like the brain seems to have difficulty with handling coincidences, philosophy has difficulty with coming up with answers"
[13:24] herman Bergson: Oh YES Quizzle....
[13:25] herman Bergson: Absolutely...
[13:25] herman Bergson: We cant live with the unexplained...
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes that can be a possibility too i guess
[13:25] herman Bergson: just look how we think about death,....
[13:25] Mickorod Renard: maybe we are victims of being a spiecies of crative minds
[13:25] Quizzle Mode: Recent studies in the US have shown students tend to be less religious as they learn more science and this is worrying some envangelical students, already some states teach intelligent design as science alongside biology and evolution.
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: hmmmm...is the world absurd then...throwing up a creature from its heart that so needs meaning, yet there being none inherent in that world?
[13:26] herman Bergson: we have difficulty to live with the idea that death simple means..it is over..
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Quizzle..I know...I'll get to creationism soon
[13:27] herman Bergson: Well Repose....
[13:27] Quizzle Mode: Repose, that comes back to the seach for what is meaning surely? if you cannot prove there is no meaning then surely you cannot argue from that position?
[13:27] herman Bergson: a fundamental question....
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: Does philosophy attempt to "answer" science? -- for example, the quantum physics idea of "non-locality" -- which WOULD explain "synchronicity" through science.
[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/?view=usa&ci=9780195144086
[13:27] herman Bergson: No Bruce....
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: Was just asking a question, me ㋡
[13:27] herman Bergson: philosophy asks questions....
[13:28] herman Bergson: And as Russell says...
[13:28] herman Bergson: as soon as we have a real answer the question moves to the realm of science
[13:28] Quizzle Mode: In ancient times many philosophers where scientists, maybe philosophy is more a branch of science than humanities?
[13:29] itsme Frederix: which is like metaphycis as another word for philosophy
[13:29] herman Bergson: I wouldnt agree to that Bruce...
[13:29] herman Bergson: The philosophical question comes first....then comes science...the body of knowledge
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: Ritual and religious behaviour seems to date back over a million years (to seeming ritual cannibalism among homo erectus as determined by bone studies)…whatever religion and supernatural belief are, their roots are deep and they must fulfill a very deep need in us
[13:30] herman Bergson: But what Quizzle said is more important...
[13:30] Quizzle Mode: isn't metaphysics a branch of philosophy in the way that algeba is a branch of math?
[13:30] itsme Frederix: I disagree strong Herman, science is just not all - or maybe all based on logistics but Wittgenstein "posphoned" an other sight
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes REpose.....
[13:31] herman Bergson: I know Itsme....
[13:31] herman Bergson: But it is not our subject at the moment...
[13:31] itsme Frederix: in his opinion, science and logistics is more like a tautology
[13:31] herman Bergson: What we try to understand is where supernatural beliefs come from
[13:31] itsme Frederix: which makes sense
[13:32] itsme Frederix: as son as you know its (more or less) obvious
[13:32] herman Bergson: and Quizzle pointed at our need to give meaning to life...
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: 300 year of reasoned scientific thought is a light turned on upon our world...but it may take a good while to deeply affect the evolved habits of mind of our species
[13:32] Quizzle Mode nods in agreesment with Repose
[13:32] itsme Frederix: Herman I agree its not our subject but it was so who stated this doubtfull vision
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Repose...and that is where people like Dawkins come in...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Agree, Prof
[13:33] herman Bergson: In the God delusion he pleads for a world without religion....which menas a world without supernatural thinking...
[13:33] herman Bergson: Just imagine ...
[13:34] herman Bergson: when we are deprived of our supernatural ideas.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: and you relate that to giving meaning to life...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Philosophically an interesting situation
[13:34] herman Bergson: You could end up in existentialism as an answer for instance
[13:35] itsme Frederix: thats fast thinking ...
[13:35] Quizzle Mode: Or maybe rethinking God? a logical, moral God of Kant?
[13:35] herman Bergson: problem is Quizzle....that God belongs to the supernatural thinking...
[13:36] Quizzle Mode: surely there are arguments on both sides to prove and disprove God?
[13:36] herman Bergson: A lot of philosophers have tried to "proof " the existence of god....with no success
[13:37] itsme Frederix: I guess its more exact to say that the God idea is for some people a supernatural idea, like thunder is/was - and many ideas/intuition in childhood
[13:37] Quizzle Mode: We cannot argue from a point of no God (or otherwise) if we cannot prove he/it does not exist?
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: there is some thing i reward before about i think was called Intelligent Design, that we are so advanced that something MUST have created it , cant possibly be created by itself like that
[13:37] Jozen Ocello: that's an interesting way to see it, Quizzle :)
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: a modern god theory
[13:38] herman Bergson: Intelligent Design is also supernatural thinking...
[13:38] Quizzle Mode: (btw I do not believe in a God, but philosophy is not about arguing beliefs yes?)
[13:38] itsme Frederix: A lot of guys has tried to prove the non existense of God, how can you prove non-existence hats idiot
[13:38] herman Bergson: To prove the non existence is nonsense , in my opinion ^_^
[13:38] herman Bergson: But to proof the existence....
[13:38] herman Bergson: we have no scientific method what soever...
[13:39] herman Bergson: what are we investigating...
[13:39] herman Bergson: of what substance is ggod made...
[13:39] herman Bergson: and if he is not a substance in the natural way....
[13:39] Bejiita Imako: like a ghost or something
[13:39] herman Bergson: how do we happen to have knowledge about this non material substance???
[13:40] itsme Frederix: well ,we have knowledge about non-euclidian spaces
[13:40] herman Bergson: what method or sense did you use to obtain true knowledge about this non material substance?
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: The very word "God" is so nebulous it is unarguable without so precisely defining the term that the discussion becomes unproductive because of its specificity
[13:41] herman Bergson: True Repose
[13:41] itsme Frederix: Thats interesting - true knowledge as distinction from knowledge!
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:41] herman Bergson: dont play with the words Itsme^_^
[13:41] Jozen Ocello: i agree Repose... that is probably why when one says he/she believes in Santa, people will say s/he is crazy, but when one says he/she doesn't believe in God...
[13:41] itsme Frederix: retoric Herman
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:43] itsme Frederix: serious, true knowledge might be science, and supernatural knowledge might exist also - well it look like existing in the brain
[13:43] herman Bergson: I dont agree Itsme...
[13:43] herman Bergson: I should have said..as I meant...certain knowledge....
[13:44] herman Bergson: true knowledge is a pleonasm....
[13:44] itsme Frederix: why did you use true knowledge then?
[13:44] herman Bergson: I apologize for my sloppy way of expressing myself ^_^
[13:44] itsme Frederix: np, I accept
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: oh, not heard of a pleonasm...google here I come ㋡
[13:45] Jozen Ocello: me too .. let me know when you find it Repose :)
[13:45] itsme Frederix: green grass, white snow
[13:45] herman Bergson: It means that you add an adjective to a noun that already implies the quality..
[13:46] Jozen Ocello: aaahhhh
[13:46] herman Bergson: for instance the expression black raven...
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: pleonasm is understood to mean a word or phrase which is useless, clichéd, or repetitive, but a pleonasm can also be simply an unremarkable use of idiom
[13:46] herman Bergson: a raven is always black...so you are saying too much...
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof ㋡
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: yep
[13:47] herman Bergson: Anyway....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our discussion shows that we may expect interesting questions for the future...
[13:47] herman Bergson: touching very sensitive issues...
[13:48] herman Bergson: So...thank you for your participation today....
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor ㋡
[13:48] Jozen Ocello: thanks Prof and thanks everyone for the discussion :)
[13:48] herman Bergson: We'll discuss the Design of the Mind next Thursday...
[13:48] Jozen Ocello: look forward to that
[13:48] itsme Frederix: Herman, could you make a small addendum - the definition of knowledge as you take it?
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes¨
[13:49] herman Bergson: in this project knowledge might be regarded to mean scientific knowledge , Itsme
[13:50] herman Bergson: I have no intention to begin a discussion on epistemological issues now :-)
[13:50] itsme Frederix: oke thx, that tells me the playground
[13:50] herman Bergson: good..^_^
[13:50] itsme Frederix: and most certainly I will (try to) respect your borders for knowledge
[13:51] itsme Frederix: thx and bye bye
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: this becomes more and more interesting
[13:51] herman Bergson: the epistemological issues have been discussed in detail in former projects..
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:51] herman Bergson: So in this project you have supernatural beliefs against scientific knowledge..
[13:52] herman Bergson: where knowledge can be regarded as formulated in falsifiable hypotheses
[13:53] herman Bergson: ok...
[13:53] herman Bergson: thnx again...class dismissed ^_^
[13:53] Bejiita Imako: aah
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehehe...hae to get to my rl school now ㋡
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: afternoon for me
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: see ya
[13:54] CONNIE Eichel: great class professor :)