373: Consciousness defined

"As recently as about the 70s there was little interest among neuroscientists, philosophers, psychologists and cognitive scientists generally in the problem of consciousness.

Reasons for the resistance to the problem varied from discipline to discipline. Philosophers had turned to the analysis of language,

psychologists had become convinced that a scientific psychology must be a science of behavior, and cognitive scientists took their research program to be the discovery of the computer programs in the brain that, they thought, would explain cognition.

It seemed especially puzzling that neuroscientists should be reluctant to deal with the problem of consciousness, because one of the chief functions of the brain is to cause

and sustain conscious states. Studying the brain without studying consciousness would be like studying the stomach without studying digestion, or studying genetics without studying the inheritance of traits", according to John Searle.

Brian cells or the discovery of new neurotransmitter were good subjects for neuroscientific investigation, but consciousness seemed to be too elusive.

This picture has changed dramatically and we can ask now the question, what exactly is the neurobiological problem of consciousness?

The problem, in its crudest terms, is this: How exactly do brain processes cause conscious states and how exactly are those states realized in brain structures?

If we regard consciousness as a biological phenomenon, this sounds similar to other biological problems, for instance, concerning micro-organisms: How, exactly, do they cause disease symptoms and how are those symptoms manifested in patient?

A closely related question is, what exactly are the neurobiological correlates of conscious states, and which of those correlates are actually causally responsible for the production of consciousness?

With respect to the correlation between neurobiological states and conscious states does the picture behind me show what enormous progress has been made in neuroscience.

The neurologist Steven Laureys, head of the Coma Science Group of the University of Luik in Belgium has succeeded to localize the brain areas which correlate with the state of consciousness of a person.

Of course, there are a number of definitions of consciousness. Some authors use the word only to refer to states of self consciousness, which means the consciousness that humans and some primates have of themselves as agents.

Some use it to refer to the second-order mental states about other mental states; so according to this definition, a pain would not be a conscious state, but worrying about a pain would be a conscious state.

John Searle defines consciousness thus: Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness.

Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep - and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma or otherwise become "unconscious."

It includes all of the enormous variety of the awareness that we think of as characteristic of our waking life. It includes everything from feeling a pain, to perceiving objects visually,

to states of anxiety and depression, to working out cross word puzzles, playing chess, trying to remember your aunt's phone number, arguing about politics, or to just wishing you were somewhere else.

Dreams on this definition are a form of consciousness, though of course they are in many respects quite different from waking consciousness.

However, Consciousness has three aspects that make it different from other biological phenomena, and indeed different from other phenomena in the natural world.

These three aspects are qualitativeness, subjectivity, and unity. I'll discuss them in the next lecture.


The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:19] Lizzy Pleides: fantastic Herman!
[13:19] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...
[13:19] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you =)
[13:19] herman Bergson: the floor is yours ㋡
[13:20] herman Bergson: Well I ant to add one thought to this....
[13:20] herman Bergson: I just got is a moment ago...
[13:21] herman Bergson: the brain causes consciousness…and the brain is a material thing....
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano: Well... the triangle in the image behind you is the area where visual, tactile and aural information meet... the place where we hold our model of our surroundings.
[13:21] herman Bergson: Now consider this.....
[13:21] herman Bergson: h2o molecules can be in a frozen state.....
[13:22] herman Bergson: certain conditions and we know it is tempreture...pretty simple cause liquidity of the h2o molecules...
[13:22] herman Bergson: so ...
[13:23] herman Bergson: the fundamental object of neuroscientific resueach could be to discover the conditions which generate consciousness...
[13:23] herman Bergson: generated by the matter of our brain...
[13:23] herman Bergson: immense complex issue , but theoretically?
[13:23] Sousinne Ceriano: Absolutely
[13:23] herman Bergson: well..this as addendum ^_^
[13:24] herman Bergson: Now it is your turn ㋡
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: But I would say that the area pointed out is not solely responsible for generating consciousness.
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: but?
[13:24] Sousinne Ceriano: It is our model of our surroundings. Anytime we are active physically, we use it
[13:24] herman Bergson: that is true Soussinne
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: Which explains the different situations on the map
[13:25] herman Bergson: But this is what the fMRI scanner shows as brain activity in conscious or unconscious persons
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: But when we are doing abstract thought, it likely happens elsewhere
[13:25] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I cannot see why philosophers need to be interested in exactly where in the brain things take place
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Only brain surgeons need to consider it
[13:26] herman Bergson: They aren't Merlin....I am ㋡
[13:26] Sousinne Ceriano: We know, for example, that the parts of sensory input that we are directly aware of are those in the thalamus
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: we have overlappings in several disciplines
[13:26] herman Bergson: Reason for this is that I started with a materialist idea of the mind
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: Materialism roxx0rs =)
[13:27] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Lizzy that is another aspect…
[13:28] herman Bergson: You cant be just a philosopher or psychologist or neuroscientist as such...
[13:28] herman Bergson: all fields overlap...are related
[13:28] herman Bergson: And Merlin....
[13:28] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes
[13:29] herman Bergson: another answer to your question.....kind of funny...
[13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: If one attempts to separate them too much, then one is seeing a part of the whole.
[13:29] herman Bergson: Descartes WAS interested in WHERE body and mind were related..
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: so consciousness depends, partially on overlapping sytsems?
[13:29] herman Bergson: He even dissected human brains to find the spot
[13:29] Jaelle Faerye: i wonder something
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: Consciousness happens in self-referring systems.
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is a neurobiological issue Sybyle.....
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: Frege and Russell were systematically avoiding precisely that which would have made their theories amazing.
[13:31] herman Bergson: What is philosophically important here is that consciousness is caused by the brain as a biological process...
[13:31] herman Bergson: in the previous lecture I discussed the ontological status of consciousness
[13:31] herman Bergson: just like you can question the ontological status of liquidity…
[13:31] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I need a dictionary :)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: thats normal Merlin
[13:32] herman Bergson: it is a feature of matter....
[13:32] Lizzy Pleides: if we can explain everything with physics and chemistry we dont need philosophy anymore ...
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: Sure we do.
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: sorry to play "mouche du coche" here
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: but
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: what tells us if "higher activity" in a small brain area is more efficient in producing consciousness than not so high activity in larger areas of the brain?
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: We are getting to the why border here... smething natural science never was able to ross.
[13:32] herman Bergson: THAT is a huge statement Lizzy.....
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: cross
[13:33] herman Bergson: Just think of the implications of your statement...!!!!
[13:33] herman Bergson: If everything is only pure physics....
[13:33] herman Bergson: there are the laws of nature....
[13:33] herman Bergson: we can predict the outcome of any chemical process....
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Jaelle, I am with you. I believe the different qualities of consciousness depend on other parts of the brain, with the sum total at 100%
[13:34] herman Bergson: This means if Lizzy is right all is determined in this universe....
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: but thats no solution
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: yes!
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the origin of the discussion on FREE WILL, Lizzy
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: of course consciousness must come from somewhere in our brains/into our brains
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: So what if it is? As long as we can't practically know, it will not affect our decision making
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but that doesn't say how it works
[13:35] herman Bergson: Your statement implies that free will does not exists
[13:36] herman Bergson: Makes me think of a lecture of John Searle on free will....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Quantum mechanics has shown that matter isnt deterministic in its processes at all at the lowest level
[13:37] herman Bergson: and he pointed at that fact to say that there is room for free will as there is room for randomness in the behavior of matter
[13:38] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: Randomness in the behavior? That's a random thought!
[13:38] herman Bergson: AmI too hard on you all?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what do you mean by free will?
[13:38] Farv Hallison smiles
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: free will is deciding to stay
[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: or to go
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: the problem of free is its definition
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: With randomness at that level, we can develop and learn to make decisions depending on the situation.
[13:39] Jaelle Faerye: for instance
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): no..i think it';s more than that
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: No, just my brain is consciously using it's free wwill to feel the pain of working this hard.
[13:39] herman Bergson: Free will means that based on your self awareness you make a decision which could not have been predicted based on your biochemical processes in your brain in advance
[13:40] Jaelle Faerye: yep
[13:40] Farv Hallison: In QM we can go to two different places at the same tikme
[13:40] herman Bergson: the decision is there just at the moment you make it
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: but is this free?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Let's stick to philosophy here, Farv... ㋡
[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: may be its a mechanism of our brain to react more quickly
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Sybyle....that observation is one of the big discussions at the moment
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it remembers me, what is my program in difficult situations
[13:42] herman Bergson: Observations that certain brain areas already have made the decision before you are consciously aware of it that you made th edecision
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: I may be way off base here, but when we attempt to look at one theory of consciousness without looking at the whole self, are we not seeing just part of the picture?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well..I think I have tortured you enough for today ^_^
[13:43] Farv Hallison: Who made the decision if you are not aware of it?
[13:43] herman Bergson: The brain Farv....!
[13:43] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:43] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and who leads the brain?
[13:44] herman Bergson: That is the whole point in the debate on free will
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: we do... that does not mean we know all that it does
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: so freedom is only a freedom, my brain gives to me?
[13:44] Mistyowl Warrhol: Your unconscious self makes decisions for your conscious self.
[13:44] herman Bergson: the bio chemical process Beertje in interaction with its environment
[13:45] herman Bergson: That is too much psychology Misty....
[13:45] Sousinne Ceriano: bye all.
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Sousinne
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: tc sousinne
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: bye Sou
[13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): bye
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Sousinne
[13:45] herman Bergson: Time to finish our discussion.....
[13:46] herman Bergson: May I thank you all for enduring me this time again :-)
[13:46] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:46] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** =O= **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** =O= **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: well thank YOU
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you professor
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: that was again a very interesting session, Herman
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: it was a pleasure to endure this
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: Need time to digest this
[13:46] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): yes ,thank You!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all for participating
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!!!
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: sure Qwark
[13:47] Ageliki Mekanic: thank you
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..I'll make it a subject of a lecture..
[13:47] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: wow
[13:47] herman Bergson: Lizzy started it !!!!!
[13:47] Qwark Allen: very interesting subject for lecture
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: blushes*
[13:47] Jaelle Faerye looks at Lizzy
[13:47] Qwark Allen: kind related with this one
[13:47] herman Bergson: So we have to answer to it
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes indeed Qwark
[13:48] Qwark Allen: very complex this classes
[13:48] Qwark Allen: but i think we are getting there
[13:48] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:48] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): it takes a long way
[13:48] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:49] herman Bergson: Indeed Qwark....I realize it was...
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: Well, give the brain a work out for sure LOL
[13:49] herman Bergson: it does Misty...
[13:50] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ㋡

372: The Brain and Consciousness, a temporary answer

Today I 'll try to clarify once again to what conclusion I have come with regard to the classic "MIND - BODY" problem.

To begin with, there never has been a "problem". The problem was created by Descartes (1596 - 1650). In the 17th century natural science emerged as a new realm of human knowledge.

The method was derived from the Ancient Greek: formulate a theory, make observations and test your theory: a systematic set of logically related propositions that attempt to explain the phenomena of some domain.

It is that in the seventeenth century there was a very serious conflict between science and religion, and it seemed that science was a threat to religion. Like religion is attacked these days again. Just think of Richard Dawkins.

Descartes devices the solution: he argued that reality divides into two kinds, the mental and the physical, res cogitans and res extensa.

Descartes made a useful division of the territory: Religion had the territory of the soul, and science could have material reality.

This shaped our vocabulary about the metal and the physical, which was of course heavily extended by the rise of psychology. Everything became mental or physical.

A good example of opposition this view: do you realize that for decades psycho-somatic diseases didn't exist. Psychiatric patients were put in cages, as if it were malfunctioning machines, good for a laugh.

It is in our time, actually these past few decades, that we have accepted the unity of being: that there is not such a thing as a mind and another thing called the body.

Yes, there is a causal relation between the mind and the body, to be more specific between the brain and the mind, defined as consciousness.

Ontology is the philosophical branch which asks the question: what does exist. Thus, our question is "Does consciousness really exist?" Or is our mental vocabulary just another way of talking about matter.

John Searle says: consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon just like digestion is, but it has some specific features in which it differs from other biological processes. We'll get to that later.

Let me try to explain the ontological status of consciousness. Consciousness is generated by the brain. No brain no consciousness.

Important here is to have a good understanding of causality. The general idea is that A causes B, where A and B are two independent events, which in a way also could exist independent of each other. After cause A, B could go on on its own.

That however, is not the case with consciousness, nor with other phenomena in physics. There exists also a kind of causality of mutual dependence.

And here we have difficulty to grasp the meaning of the statement that consciousness exists. Let me give you again the example of the causal relation between h2o molecules and liquidity.

We all accept that liquidity exists. Ok, as a property of water and there is the catch: WHAT is the ontological status of "liquidity", of such a property? Matter exists, molecules exist, but in what sense does a property exist?

Descartes solved the problem easily. He just concluded that this property could be regarded as an independent non material matter.

And here comes the brainteaser. Liquidity is not identical with h2o molecules under certain circumstances, for when I pick out such a molecule it will be just a collection of atoms and not liquid. Neither can you find a braincell of which you can say that it is conscious.

There is a way of existence which totally depends on the configuration of matter, which can be a subject of scientific research without forcing us to postulate something more than matter. In other words…the mind is the brain….


The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson: thank you....
[13:21] herman Bergson: The floor is yours!!
[13:21] Sousinne Ceriano cheers.
[13:22] Sybyle Perdide: sighs
[13:22] druth Vlodovic: so it's all because of politics, I knew it!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Well druth....the dualism is
[13:22] Farv Hallison: the social construction of reality.
[13:23] herman Bergson: Dualism was Farv....
[13:23] druth Vlodovic: why is sybyle sighing?
[13:23] Mick Nerido: The brain is a organ that is an electro chemical computer...
[13:23] Netty Crystal is Offline
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: cause she have to get the clue..slowly
[13:24] Sybyle Perdide: has*
[13:24] Mariella Diesel (mariella.deezul) is Offline
[13:24] herman Bergson: Welll Mick...say that it is electro -chemical ....and leave the computer part...:-)
[13:24] herman Bergson: A computer is not even a shadow of the capacities of the brain
[13:25] Mick Nerido: just for a functional comparison not the same
[13:25] herman Bergson: I know MIck.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: But you know....the mind - computer comparison is an issue in itself....
[13:25] Sousinne Ceriano: to me, the most convincing evidence of this is what happens to a brain and a mind after a stroke. You lose a brain area, you lose its function...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Just look at the picture behind me Sousinne...
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is your story
[13:26] Loo Zeta: But the brain compensates and regenerates new pathways
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: yes
[13:27] Sousinne Ceriano: Which says to me that if you were to lose your entire brain, say, at death... you would lose ALL function - i.e. oblivion
[13:27] Loo Zeta: we chuck computers out
[13:27] Mick Nerido: All our senses are feeding the brain information and the brain synthezises all to produce a "consciousness"
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: but not always completely
[13:27] Farv Hallison: then let the brain heal and redistribute its memories and the function comes back.
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: not always, Farv
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: Not really... areas are not interchangeable.
[13:28] Loo Zeta: Some memory function is lost forever
[13:28] Sousinne Ceriano: When you do get a partial refunctioning, it's not as it happens witout a cost
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes but some functions can move to other brain areas....it happens
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: sure
[13:29] Loo Zeta: reschematics
[13:29] Sousinne Ceriano: it happens in a limited way. A damaged brain stays damaged.
[13:29] herman Bergson: True Sousinne
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:30] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): and a damaged mind?
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: but good question Beertje
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: (without but)
[13:30] Sousinne Ceriano: And a damaged mind.
[13:30] herman Bergson: That is not a good question, Beertje..lol
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: why not?
[13:31] herman Bergson: It is ambiguous...
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: We don't use 10% of our brain... we use exactly 100% of it, but not all the time.
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: one has to define what a damaged mind is
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: and
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye: this is SL...
[13:31] Jaelle Faerye looks suspiciously around
[13:31] druth Vlodovic: lol
[13:31] Sousinne Ceriano: So every little area destroyed will respond to lost function.
[13:31] herman Bergson: because a damaged mind refers to a psychological state, not to a neurobiolocal state
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: but if the mind is the brain...
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: but isn't the idea that any psychological state has a corresponding neurological state?
[13:32] herman Bergson: I mean...my mind is damaged of course..I am crazy ..:-)
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:32] Sousinne Ceriano: It doesn't matter much, as you said, Sybyle
[13:32] herman Bergson: but my brian is ok....as is my consciousness :-)
[13:32] Jaelle Faerye: i am not sure the mind is the brain, Sybyle
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: Brain damage is mind damage
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: the mind is "part of", or "sits in" the brain, maybe?
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: you are to fats Sousinne
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: No
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: not necessarily
[13:33] herman Bergson: yes...if you keep the terms in the neurobiological context Sousinne
[13:33] Loo Zeta: Frontal lobe?
[13:33] Sousinne Ceriano: I always do, Herman
[13:33] druth Vlodovic: if "mind" is how you think then you have to include the effects of hormones
[13:34] herman Bergson: hold on....!!!!!
[13:34] Sousinne Ceriano: And where do hormones come from?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Something is going wrong here.....
[13:34] herman Bergson: All of a sudden we ar e using the term MIND....
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman, have to go Bye
[13:35] Farv Hallison: bye Mick
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hormones come from glands that are directly or indirectly regulated from the Thalamus.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: bye Mick
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: and we didnt define it b4
[13:35] herman Bergson: I think that is a completely obsolete term....with no meaning at all or hundreds of meanings
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Hmmm, hypothalamus. sorry.
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Sousinne...better place to be ^_^
[13:35] Sousinne Ceriano: Which is definitely part of the brain.
[13:35] druth Vlodovic: "brain" is an organ while "mind" is a concept, yes?
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: too general i think
[[13:36] herman Bergson: Brain is an organ Druth and consciousness is its product
[13:36] druth Vlodovic: but not everything we do is conscious
[13:37] herman Bergson: Mind is a word form the history of philosophy...
[13:37] arabella Ella is Online
[13:37] herman Bergson: no use for that anymore
[13:37] herman Bergson: leads only to confusion....
[13:37] druth Vlodovic: we even make decisions without really engaging the consciousness
[13:37] herman Bergson: unless you say mind is synonymous with consciousness
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes we do Druth....
[13:38] Sousinne Ceriano: Mind is consciousness.
[13:38] herman Bergson: with every step you take for instance
[13:38] Farv Hallison: I think the mind is where understanding occurs.
[13:38] druth Vlodovic: I was thinking of "mind" as being a more general term encompassing everything that causes thought or action
[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so we need to find a definition of mind, before talking about
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: but we have supernatural phenomens that you cant explain this way
[13:39] Sousinne Ceriano: Such as...?
[13:39] herman Bergson: To begin with Sybyle
[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: transfer of thoughts
[13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
[13:40] Sousinne Ceriano: Well, if you have evidence of telepathy, I am sure there are many who would listen.
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: its okay
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: i agree
[13:40] herman Bergson: And what Farv said I would reply....
[13:40] druth Vlodovic: if I am uncomfortably warm it will make me irritable, this will affect my thoughts, so my overheated body becomes part of my mind without being part of my brain
[13:40] Farv Hallison: but if you drop the mind, where does understanding happen?
[13:41] herman Bergson: you refer to cognitive functions which are inherent to consciousness
[13:41] herman Bergson: Understanding as a function of consciousness
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i feel a bit empty without a mind...
[13:42] herman Bergson: But you are a still a conscious person Beertje
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: i would feel empty without a soul
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye: but that's another question
[13:42] Jaelle Faerye smiles
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: soul is very unscientific jaelle:_))
[13:42] herman Bergson: the word mind is so related to our dualist views of mind and body....
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I dropped the idea of a soul a while back, the emptiness fills in :)
[13:42] Sousinne Ceriano: Understanding happens in the very highest abstract thought centers.
[13:42] herman Bergson: you feel lost without a mind and happy without a body...
[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: if you can define soul, it becomes scientific, Lizzy
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: absolutely
[13:43] Sousinne Ceriano: You are always on my consciousness?
[13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol
[13:43] herman Bergson: oh dear Beertje...
[13:44] Farv Hallison: Where do you make the descion to jump out of the way when you see a shadow that might be a tiger?
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: lol, I have to go or I'll feel empty inside without a pizza
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: thanks herman
[13:44] herman Bergson: the limbic system of the brain does that Farv...
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: bye druth
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: bye all
[13:44] Sousinne Ceriano: In some risk evaluation center. Also pretty high up.
[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not evne a decision in a conscious sense
[13:44] Jaelle Faerye: ye Druth
[13:45] druth Vlodovic is Offline
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..I have burned out half of my class now....looks good
[13:45] herman Bergson: time to end the discusion.....^_^
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye feels like a mindless survivor
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....great discussion again today....!
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Always been mindless here =)
[13:46] Loo Zeta: Thanks sorry missed beginning
[13:46] Sousinne Ceriano: Thank you, professor.
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: I am crazy..so I don't feel my mindlessness here ;)
[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: but.. well done, Herman..thanks a lot
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: haaa
[13:46] herman Bergson: and never mind....
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks Herman
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: ooh nice pun
[13:46] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman! it was great again!
[13:47] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can't sing that song anymore..but i can sing..toen onze mop een mopje was..lalallalalal
[13:47] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy...
[13:47] herman Bergson: lol
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: will we continue at that point next time?
[13:47] Farv Hallison: yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: Great class today!
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: great teacher ; )
[13:48] Loo Zeta: and i will direct RL son to your blogs, he is starting Philosophy degree in Wales soon
[13:49] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:49] Qwark Allen: getting interesting everyday more
[13:49] herman Bergson: Oh...Might be a good help for him....
[13:49] herman Bergson: If he really reads through all my projects he really get s good insight in many topics
[13:50] herman Bergson: He may skip the discussions :-)
[13:50] Sousinne Ceriano giggles.
[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye all...have a goodnight
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: nite Beertje!
[13:51] herman Bergson: By eBeertje
[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:51] Jaelle Faerye: bye Beertje
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: ooh
[13:53] Qwark Allen: see you next class
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Qwark
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: i just discovered that you give the "class notes" on your blog!
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: nice!
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman, good night!
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thnx for coming Lizzy :-)
[13:54] Jaelle Faerye: Thanks, Herman
[13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure Jaelle
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: good night Herman
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: I am glad my friends made me discover this class
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: :)
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: it was a pleasure
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: as always
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Sybyle

371: The Brain and a new approach

Last lecture I introduced a new approach. After all, which we have discussed, I have come to the conclusion, that it would be better to drop my reductionist materialist view.

I adopt a new hypothesis, as formulated by John Searle: " Consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical.

It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels."

A biological process? You could argue, isn't that plain materialism? According to Searle the answer is "NO", but to understand that, we have to look closer at his arguments

Most important is that we stop using any of the traditional categories of "dualism," "monism," "materialism," and all the rest of it.

Frankly, I think, says Searle, those categories are obsolete. But if we accept those categories at face value, then we get the following picture:

You have a choice between dualism and materialism.

According to dualism, consciousness and other mental phenomena exist in a different ontological realm altogether from the ordinary physical world of physics, chemistry, and biology.

According to materialism consciousness as I have described it does not exist. That is, asa biological phenomenon.

Just recall what I said in my previous lecture out the attempt to reduce the statements of one theory to a set of more basic statements, which could imply that the first kind of statements even become obsolete.

Like theories based on alchemy or witchcraft have been discarded completely, because we now talk in terms of chemistry and medicine.

Neither dualism nor materialism as traditionally construed, allows us to get an answer to our question about consciousness.

Dualism says that there are two kinds of phenomena in the world, the mental and the physical; materialism says that there is only one, the material.

Dualism ends up with an impossible bifurcation of reality into two separate categories and thus makes it impossible to explain the relation between the mental and the physical.

But materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

In short, dualism makes the problem insoluble; materialism denies the existence of any phenomenon to study, and hence of any problem.

The heart of my new approach is "the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness. "

In essence it leads to the question, if this is not about an independent not physical substance, nor is is reducible to pure matter, then how do we have to understand this?

We know enough about how the world works to know that consciousness is a biological phenomenon caused by brain processes and realized in the structure of the brain.

It is irreducible not because it is ineffable or mysterious, but because it has a first person ontology, and therefore cannot be reduced to phenomena with a third person ontology.

What I mean by this last statement I'll explain to you in my next lecture



The Discussion

[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you Lizzy :-)
[13:24] Qwark Allen is Offline
[13:24] Mick Nerido: By first person you mean what I am experiencing cannot be reproduced?
[13:25] herman Bergson: Something like that , yes, Mick....but it is a bit longer story
[13:26] herman Bergson: But before ending up in the next lecture....
[13:26] herman Bergson: science describes the world in third person form.....
[13:26] herman Bergson: that molecule behaves so and so....third person
[13:27] herman Bergson: my private conscious states however, I can only describe by saying....I feel, I believe I experience and so on...
[13:27] herman Bergson: I can't describe them by saying herman Bergson is experiencing this or that....when I talk about myself
[13:28] herman Bergson: But we'll get to that in detail in the next lecture
[13:28] Mick Nerido: ok
[13:29] herman Bergson: most interesting in my new approach is that I have to drop materialism in its most absolute form...
[13:29] herman Bergson: There is something in this word ..ontologically which we can't name....
[13:30] herman Bergson: let me explain....
[13:30] herman Bergson: micro-level.....macro-level
[13:30] herman Bergson: water....
[13:30] herman Bergson: at the micro-level it is a bunch of h2o molecules...only that
[13:31] herman Bergson: in a certain state water is liquid....
[13:31] herman Bergson: so there is liquidity....
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is caused by the h2o molecules....
[13:31] herman Bergson: can't exist without them...
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes at the macro level liquidity is something real..ontologically
[13:32] haglet Alter is Online
[13:32] herman Bergson: that is according to Searle also the relation between the matter of th ebrain and consciousness
[13:33] herman Bergson: liquidity is a feature of h2o molecules....
[13:33] herman Bergson: there not a single liquid h2o molecule….
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: poking Mick and waking him up!
[13:34] Mick Nerido: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: but combined in a certain state those molecules cause this property which we call liquidity
[13:34] herman Bergson: so...
[13:34] Mick Nerido: So conciousness is chemistry?
[13:35] herman Bergson: I hope you get a picture more or less? :-))
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: so discussing water, we forget on components in the water.. say river water vs tap water?
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Mick it is
[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): does not matter
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, kicking chemistry into a closet for now :-)
[13:36] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): needs to mull this over a while
[13:36] herman Bergson: apart from h2o molecules there can be a lot of other molecules in the water....
[13:36] herman Bergson: but that is irrelevant
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): question did you really toss out your basic philosophy herman ? or just adjust the the termanology?
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: ok clearing out the unnecessary data and focusing on just H2O
[13:37] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sp
[13:37] herman Bergson: Most important is that you understand that liquidity is a property of water that can only exist , and it does, when h2o molecules are in a certain state
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:38] herman Bergson: like consciousness is a feature of the brain when it is in a given state....
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): got it
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: and consciousness? is it effected by different states?
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sleep
[13:38] herman Bergson: sure....
[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): coma
[13:38] herman Bergson: whe we are asleep we are not conscious....
[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:39] herman Bergson: yes Gemma , things like come....locked-in syndrome...brrrr
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: but for this study, we are ignoring those and just focusing on the how consciousness fits into our world.. ?
[13:39] herman Bergson: We try to understand what consciousness it, Misty....
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: ok :-)
[13:40] Lizzy Pleides: what about subconsciousness?
[13:40] herman Bergson: Like one pretty common way of understanding it is, that we have a body and a mind...
[13:40] herman Bergson: as if these were two independent entities
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some do not believe in Subconsciousness. one either is or is not aware.
[13:41] herman Bergson: subconsciousness is a term from psychology, Lizzy....
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: correction, some do not believe in it.
[13:41] herman Bergson: it has little meaning in the context of the philosophical analysis of consciousness
[13:41] Lizzy Pleides: do you say it doesn't exist?
[13:42] herman Bergson: besides...subconsciousness is a term which has only meaning within the psych analytical context
[13:42] Mick Nerido: I have to go thank s
[13:42] herman Bergson: A completely different story is the question....do we always act, based on conscious decisions?
[13:43] herman Bergson: and that is obviously not the case....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: intuition
[13:44] herman Bergson: psychotic behavior….
[13:45] herman Bergson: neuroses..
[13:45] Jaelle Faerye: those are pathological though
[13:45] herman Bergson: a person who is not aware that he washes his hands every 5 minutes for instance
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes they are the extremes Jaelle
[13:46] Jaelle Faerye: uh huh
[13:46] herman Bergson: but look at yourself.....
[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe once someone said to you...do you know that you always……….
[13:46] herman Bergson: habits
[13:47] herman Bergson: Like Hume said...Custom is the great guide of life....
[13:47] Jaelle Faerye: habits, like sports moves, are the body repeating (or the mind) movements they have learnt
[13:47] herman Bergson: doing things all the time about which you do not have to think...:-)
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: once acquired, those movements, or habits, are more comfortable
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Jaelle....
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: easier
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: so it is a learning process somehow
[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: i think
[13:48] herman Bergson: an din that case consciousness as we understand it is not involved…
[13:48] Rodney Handrick is Online
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: no, because the body has learnt to go past it
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: is able to spare it
[13:49] herman Bergson: inthe beginning of the learning process we had to be conscious of every move.....
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: so you can use your consciousness
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: the brain has....
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: adapted
[13:49] Jaelle Faerye: to the task
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: new neuron paths
[13:50] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: once established, doesn't take a lot of thinking
[13:50] Mistyowl Warrhol: but is the consciousness you use, mental or physical?
[13:50] herman Bergson: just look at a young child.....
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: the mind is available for something else
[13:50] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: how conscious it has to be of every move....when he learns to walk
[13:50] Jaelle Faerye: depends what is the task you're setting yourself to
[[13:51] Jaelle Faerye: people who work a lot with their brain, use it in constructed ways, paths too
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: and it might be easy for them to write a state of the art article on, say, neurosurgery, but difficult to learn a new language
[13:52] herman Bergson: Looks at his watch....
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: but i might be disgressing here :)
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: Hi Rod, you are late
[13:52] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hi Rodney :-)
[13:52] Jaelle Faerye: Hello Rodney
[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i have to go in a few minuts
[13:52] herman Bergson: lol no!...Rodney...
[13:52] Rodney Handrick: Hi everyone...happy new year
[13:52] herman Bergson: He always comes in on the right moment.....
[13:53] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation again....
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:53] herman Bergson: see you next class
[13:53] Jaelle Faerye: Thank YOU
[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:53] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman
[13:53] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney..happy 2012
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for now
[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: still rezzing
[13:54] herman Bergson: And give Qwark my regards and best wishes for his health
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: thanks a lot, that was quite instructive :)
[13:55] herman Bergson: thank you Jaelle...
[13:55] herman Bergson: feel free to attend any lecture you like
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: Good evening, all :)
[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: TC everybody
[13:55] Jaelle Faerye: thanks :)

370: The Brain and a new point of view

Nice to see you all again. I hope you enjoyed your holidays as much as I did. For those who missed my message , of course , 2012 for you a lot of health and lots of love.

At least the coming months of this new year will be pretty difficult for us, because we have reached the final stage of our quest into the mystery of the brain.

The brain has been the topic of last year in RL. Lots of publications about the brain and how it works. During our quest we too have seen that many mental phenomena can be explained by the functioning and properties of the brain.

I started our quest with my thesis formulated in 1977, which was, to put it simple, that mental terms and physical terms refer to the same thing.

For example, to say "I am angry" and "There is adrenaline in my blood" may have a different meaning, but when asked to what state of affairs do both statements refer, we should give the answer: to a specific biochemical state of my body.

Taken one step further you could conclude that when those mental terms refer to the same states of affairs as the physical terms, then why not dispose of these often vague mental terms.

Like you could suggest to dispose of the word "water''. Delete it from our language, because talking about H2O is way more accurate.

This way of thinking is called reductionism, reducing one set of statements to a more fundamental set of statements, even suggesting to eliminate the first set.

Like we have reduced complete theories of witchcraft and alchemy to more basic chemical and medical theories. We even don't take witchcraft and alchemy serious anymore.

It all may sounds so obvious, that our language refers only to the material world and that with the growth of our scientific knowledge we can unmask pseudo-language that claims to refer to more than just material states of affairs.

But now comes the difficult part. John Searle (1932 - …)says: "Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.

Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity."

Thus , a reductionist view won't do the job according to Searle. Yet his thesis is that "consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon.It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."

And he adds" We are blinded to the natural, biological character of consciousness and other mental phenomena by our philosophical tradition, which makes "mental" and "physical" into two mutually exclusive categories.

The way out is to reject both dualism and materialism, and accept that consciousness is both a qualitative, subjective "mental" phenomenon, and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world."

So that will be my new position: putting to the test that consciousness is a qualitative mental phenomenon and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world. And in this context, according to Searle , we can reject materialism.

Again Searle: " Consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical.

It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels. To accept this "biological naturalism," as I like to call it, we first have to abandon the traditional categories."

So, according to Searle, I have to abandon my materialist reductionist approach of the mind - body problem and accept that his view is more plausible.

Then this will be our new approach tot the Mystery of the Brain.


The Discussion

[2012/01/03 13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you... ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:20] Farv Hallison: It sounds like wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.
[2012/01/03 13:20] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ..:-))
[2012/01/03 13:21] Farv Hallison: two complementary decriptions...sometimes wave, other times particle.
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Well dont know what that is, but at some stage Searle points at quantum mechanics indeed in relation to the subject of free wil
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Ahh yes...
[2012/01/03 13:22] herman Bergson: As you may have understood...I am going to make John Searle a kind of central focus
[2012/01/03 13:23] herman Bergson: He is a brilliant philosopher of mind excelling in clarity and good arguments
[2012/01/03 13:23] Mick Nerido: could it be simply that as a brain grows more evolved consciousness is a inevitable step in its functioning?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: There you already imply the possibility of growth of consciousness Mick....that already is an issue...
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: is a child less conscious than we are?
[2012/01/03 13:25] Farv Hallison: what does 'inevitable' mean in this context?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: If so ..how do you measure that
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: typo for inevitable.... cant escape it
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mick Nerido: when I have cafeine I am more conscious :))
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: consciousness is awareness.. a child has limited awareness of all around it. So is a child less conscious or just less experienced in understanding what it sees or hears?
[2012/01/03 13:27] Lizzy Pleides: can we say a part is heredity and another part is experience?
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: that is easily said Mick, but we even haven't a clear definition of consciousness....
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: You may feel more alert yes....
[2012/01/03 13:28] herman Bergson: but you were conscious of your mental state before and after the coffee
[2012/01/03 13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol I am only conscious after at least 2 cups of coffee !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:29] Farv Hallison: It has survival value. we become aware of when someone is going to be mean to us and cut them off before they can do it.
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: what did change only that what you were conscious of
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: yes Farv , what happens is that some senses become more accurate and focused
[2012/01/03 13:30] Farv Hallison: we could change our reactions by becoming aware
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: How does one define "consciousness"
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mick Nerido: Consciousness is linked to awareness of past present and future...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: of course....but what we are talking about is th econtent of our conscious experience and its effects on the organism
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: not about consciousness itself and what it is
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: and believe me...at this moment I have no clue what it is...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: I know where it resided in the brain
[2012/01/03 13:32] herman Bergson: that is....when certain areas of the brain show no activitiy at all anymore then the person is not conscious
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But so far that is all we know....
[2012/01/03 13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: If areas of the brain are no longer conscious are they then dead?
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But what the brain then generates what we call consciousness and how it relates to the brain....we'll have to find out
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: You better write that dow Bergie!
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mick Nerido: she is writing everything down lol
[2012/01/03 13:34] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i wrote everything :-) herr professor
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: Good.....
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: Waiting to see if she needs to sharpen her pencil soon.
[2012/01/03 13:35] herman Bergson: Well...if there are no more questions, then..may invite you to follow me in my quest in 2012
[2012/01/03 13:35] Farv Hallison wonders if bergfrau wrote down how Mistyowl's hair smells.
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel takes the invitation
[2012/01/03 13:36] neret Emor: thanks so much herman
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must think too with writing - mulititaskgenie
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: Looking forward to more conscious raising awareness of the universe!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[2012/01/03 13:36] herman Bergson: I really dont know where we will end....
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: I just washed it !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor!
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and ty class :-) i must go outside with m dogs
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see you soon:-) philosophers
[2012/01/03 13:37] CONNIE Eichel: was nice, as always :)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: A lot to think about :-)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Farv Hallison: Thank you Professor Bergson.
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********

369: The Brain and The Mystery of Consciousness

According to John Searle in his book "The Mystery of Consciousness" (1997), it seems that the greatest single philosophical obstacle to getting a satisfactory account of consciousness is

our continued acceptance of a set of obsolete categories, and an accompanying set of presuppositions that we have inherited from our religious and philosophical tradition.

We start off with the mistaken assumption that the notions of "mental" and "physical," of "dualism" and "monism," of "materialism" and "idealism" are clear and respectable notions as they stand,and that the issues have to be posed and resolved in these traditional terms.

We also suppose that the notion of scientific reduction - by which complex phenomena can be explained by, and in some cases eliminated in favor of, the basic mechanisms that make them work - is clear and presents few difficulties.

We then notice that consciousness, our ordinary states of sentience and awareness when we are awake, as well as our states of dreaming when we are asleep, seem very peculiar when we compare them with such "physical" phenomena as molecules or mountains.

Compared to mountains and molecules, consciousness seems "mysterious," "ethereal," even "mystical."

Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.

Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity.

Many philosophers believe that if you grant real existence to consciousness you will be forced to some version of "dualism,"

the view that there are two metaphysically different kinds of phenomena in the universe, the mental and the physical.

Indeed for many authors, the very definition of dualism implies that if you accept, in addition to such "physical" phenomena as mountains, "mental" phenomena such as pains, you are a dualist.

But dualism as traditionally conceived seems a hopeless theory because, having made a strict distinction between the mental and the physical, it cannot then make the relation of the two intelligible.

It seems that to accept dualism is to give up the entire scientific worldview that we have spent nearly four centuries to attain. So, what are we to do?

So far John Searle, who thus outlines the program, that lays ahead of us.

There still are philosophers, who accept dualism as the real solution of the problem of consciousness. One great name here is David J. Chalmers.

But in contemporary philosophy the most common move is to insist that materialism must be right and that we must eliminate consciousness by reducing it to something else.

Favorite candidates for the phenomena to which consciousness must be reduced are brain states described in purely "physical" terms and computer programs.

Searle takes an interesting position in relation to the pragmatic and deliberate choice I made for materialism and possibly a kind of reductionism.

A good example of this reductionism is the discussion about free will. Some neuroscientists deny the existence of free will, because certain brain states are ahead of our consciousness of these states.

Before I am conscious of wanting to move my arm, there has taken place already certain brain activity, which indicates motor action.

Ok, let me assume Searle's view as leading principle for the last stage of our quest:

"consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon. It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."

And to conclude this lecture and this year,I have granted myself with a nice Christmas holiday, which means that my next lecture will be Tuesday, January 3, 2012. ^_^


The Discussion

[13:22] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yay!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you all..... ㋡
[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ok
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Mistyowl Warrhol: A conscious act? :-)
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: it sure have been an interesting year
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] neret Emor: thanks for the lecture, herman
[13:23] herman Bergson: my pleasure neret
[13:23] Farv Hallison: I don't do photosynthesis myself
[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any questions left...
[13:23] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:23] herman Bergson: the floor is yours
[13:23] Mick Nerido: Nice summation
[13:23] Clerisse Beeswing: wow end of year already
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:23] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you fot all the wonderful lessons this year Herman
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): jan 3 nice
[13:24] Clerisse Beeswing: you have been so great professor and everyone else too
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:24] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we have a lot to think about during christmas holiday
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: been really nice this
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh this is always an interesting class
[13:24] herman Bergson: blushes a little...
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha!
[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): for years now
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehehe
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: ideed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: very nice
[13:25] herman Bergson: We reached the 5th year of our lectures and crossed the border of 300 too
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: and got a good insight in everything
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: ohhh my gosh
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I think i have been to about 270??
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): more or less
[13:25] Clerisse Beeswing: our brains might explode from some much thinking
[13:25] Mistyowl Warrhol: Nice, wish I hadn't missed the others.. but looking forward to future ones :-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: at least Gemma!
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: hreman has been at all of them
[13:25] neret Emor: same here, mistyowl
[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i just say i know that the more classes the more questions come up and allso the same ones all the time
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): over and over
[13:26] herman Bergson: that is a good thing Gemma....
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the more we learn the less we understand
[13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: Isnt that the purpose, not to teach what we know, but to lead us to learn more?
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): end of next year you have even more questions gemma:)
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and the farther we get from graduating
[13:26] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that Gemma....
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahaa
[13:26] herman Bergson: I think you begin to see more and more nuances...
[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): that is true
[13:26] Clerisse Beeswing: lol nope I will never graduate from learning
[13:27] neret Emor: me neither xD
[13:27] DOMINATRIX Babii: life is one long lesson
[13:27] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): nor me:)
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): the backbone of our class is behind us on the wall
[13:27] Clerisse Beeswing: very true dominatrix
[13:27] neret Emor: the lesson finish just in the grave
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we always go back to them
[13:27] herman Bergson: it may cause a feeling of knowing less and less...but in fact you see much more...
[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: true herman
[13:27] neret Emor: very true
[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: and the more you see the more new questions come up
[13:28] herman Bergson: It shows you that you can't settle such questions with funny one-liners
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but in general you know more and more
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: but that in turn raises new questions and so on
[13:28] herman Bergson: Oh I feel lost now and then myself....
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: guess that is how it it
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: is
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: the more you know the more you doubt
[13:29] herman Bergson: looking at all the literature I have....
[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: if the number of question grows proportional to what we see more, its hard to see anything
[13:29] herman Bergson: I would look at it that way, Sybyle....
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we will see Sybylle..herman will leed us..
[13:29] neret Emor: but is the same along humanity history, we leanr and make lot of mistakes and its like each answer take u to the new question
[13:29] Farv Hallison: All the trees obscure my view of the forrest.
[13:30] herman Bergson: Just take my appoach of this philosophical problem....
[13:30] neret Emor: and curiousity makes us very special
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: sorry:-( but i have to much lag today. happy holidays Class! :-)))
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): speaking of trees again
[13:30] herman Bergson: of course I have no clear cut answers...
[13:30] Mick Nerido: Thanks time for me to go
[13:30] DOMINATRIX Babii: and some people never learn from the mistakes in history :)
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok bergie
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): you too
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: One has to know enough to be able to ask questions, the more they learn the more and deeper the questions.
[13:30] herman Bergson: but I make a pragmatic decision....
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): /merry
[13:30] neret Emor: very true :D
[13:30] bergfrau Apfelbaum: **** YODEL **** HOLLA REI DULI JÖ *** YODEL ***
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:30] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:30] herman Bergson: and then I put my view to the test
[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ⁂•:._.:•⁂MERRY CHRISTMAS⁂•:._.:•⁂
[13:30] Clerisse Beeswing: Best of holidays to all
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i have to go..have a merry Christmas or Saturnalia:)))
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: same to you ㋡
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡
[13:31] neret Emor: merry christmas gemma
[13:31] herman Bergson: Not to get my view confirmed....but to get my view tested
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): beertje
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: cu beertje
[13:31] DOMINATRIX Babii: have a lovely holiday everybody:)
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: May we keep learning into the next and next new year
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: as you do, Beertje
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: same to you Beertje
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we will
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: ·Bye Bertje
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye bye
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: Thanks professor
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: looking forward to it
[13:31] neret Emor: mery crhistmas beertje
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...Qwark isnt online. I guess I have a merry crowd here now....
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hugs beertje
[13:31] Nitro Fireguard: I have to go too
[13:31] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Beertje :-) hugs
[13:32] herman Bergson: So....I all wish you the happiest holidays...!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: bye then Notro
[13:32] neret Emor: marry xmas as well, nitro :)
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman
[13:32] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman ㋡
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard smiles
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: / \
[13:32] Nitro Fireguard: thank you
[[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i hope we will see you dancing over the holidays one day
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: have a good christmas and new year Herman
[[13:32] Bejiita Imako: and cu after that next year
[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah!
[13:32] herman Bergson: Have yourself a merry little Xmas and a happy New Year ^_^
[13:32] DOMINATRIX Babii: see you in 2012 :)
[13:32] neret Emor: see u soon bejiita
[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): if i cannot make the 3rd will be there on the 5th
[13:33] Nitro Fireguard: Happy christmas to all the philosophers
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok cu all
[13:33] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation!
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: really nice
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: thanks for take us with you, Herman
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ok bye then
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:34] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita
[13:34] neret Emor: bye bejiita
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: and my outfit is Beertje's christmas one from her store :-)
[13:34] DOMINATRIX Babii: bye bejiita:)
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Bejita
[13:34] Farv Hallison: good bye all you lovely philosophers.
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: bye Farv
[13:34] neret Emor: bye farv, have a nice xmas
[13:35] herman Bergson: Bye Farv..have a good time!
[13:35] Mistyowl Warrhol: If I dont see anyone before.. TC, be safe and healthy, have a happy holiday season.. and warm New Year.
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: good holidays to you, Herman
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: and we will meet again in 2012
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: yes have wonderful holidays Herman and all others
[13:36] herman Bergson: Will be an interesting 2012 Sybyle...
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I am sure
[13:36] neret Emor: see u the next class
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: enjoy your holidays
[13:36] herman Bergson: ok neret :-)

368: The Brain and Consciousness

Today we have reached a milestone in our quest of the Mystery of the brain. After dozens of attempts to formulate a theory of the mind, from dualism to connectionism, we have reached the point of no return.

CONSCIOUSNESS….

"This era is at once the most exciting and the most frustrating for the study of consciousness in my intellectual lifetime:

exciting because consciousness has again become respectable, indeed almost central, as a subject of investigation in philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, and even neuroscience;

frustrating because the whole subject is still plagued with mistakes and errors I thought had been long exposed.", says John Searle (1932 - …) in the Preface of "The Mystery of consciousness (1997).

As a pragmatic choice I started our quest with the assumption that the mind and consciousness are a product of the brain.

Neuroscience has proven that a number of mysterious experiences, like experiencing the presence of an invisible entity or person near to you,

or voices in our head, or flashes of revelations, or the appearance of the holy Virgin, or out-of-body and near - death experiences are all tricks that the brain plays on us.

For consciousness we need at least three crucial parts of the brain: the cortex, the thalamus and the white matter, in which are embedded all neural connections between cortex and thalamus.

The thalamus (from Greek θάλαμος = room, chamber) is a midline paired symmetrical structure within the brains of vertebrates, including humans.

It is situated between the cerebral cortex and midbrain, both in terms of location and neurological connections. Its function includes relaying sensation, spatial sense, and motor signals to the cerebral cortex, along with the regulation of consciousness, sleep, and alertness.

Any damage to one of these parts affects the state of consciousness of a person.

A stroke that damages the right brain, for instance, can make the person loose consciousness of the left side of his body or left spacial consciousness.

When you approach such a person from the left he doesn't notice you at all, from the right he does. Such a person eats only the food on the right half of his plate. Turn it 180 degrees and he can eat the left half.

Coma is another source of information on how to understand the relation between brain and consciousness.

The brainstem controls all functions which are vital to survive, respiration, heartbeat, body temperature and so on. As its name suggests, it is positioned below the cortex.

When the cortex gets damaged, we may loose consciousness, but the brainstem continues to perform its duties. Consequently we stay alive, but unconscious.

Of course there are many more medical examples, but my main point here is, that brain and consciousness are inextricably linked

and that the final stage of our quest is to learn to understand how a bunch of general purpose molecules in a certain configuration can give birth to the mind and consciousness.


The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: Thank you....
[13:18] herman Bergson: To answer Farv....
[13:18] herman Bergson: subconsciousness is a psychological term
[13:19] herman Bergson: while consciousness as meant here is a neurological or biological term
[13:19] Teleo Aeon: what is it to be considered (conscious) of something ?
[13:19] herman Bergson: in that sense subconsciousness and consciousness here are hardly related to each other
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: there is no location for subconsciousness?
[13:20] herman Bergson: there is no location for subconscious nor consciousness.
[13:21] herman Bergson: To be conscious of something....
[13:21] herman Bergson: there are two things in the organism....
[13:21] herman Bergson: a consciousness of the environment with which it interacts and an awareness of the self
[13:21] Teleo Aeon: so this is a proposed consciousness, which is the kind of being counscious of being aware ?
[13:22] Teleo Aeon: or just a mechanism of consciousness
[13:22] Teleo Aeon: or for
[13:22] herman Bergson: not sure what you mean Teleo... ㋡
[13:24] Teleo Aeon: well one could argue that being conscious of being aware, might be different in humans, in the sense that we are actually constantly thinking about outcomes and causes and effect... but we are aware of that AND aware of being aware
[13:24] herman Bergson: I see.....
[13:25] herman Bergson: On the one hand we have self awareness....
[13:25] Teleo Aeon: what the actual biological mechanism underlying that is.. is maybe a search in a different respect, to consciousness
[13:25] herman Bergson: and yes you can play the game of being awere that you are aware of that you are aware of that you are a wre...
[13:25] herman Bergson: ad infinitum....
[13:26] Mick Nerido: We are conscious beings means that matter has that potential...
[13:26] herman Bergson: on the other hand....consciousness is just one word....but it refers to a number of mental states...not to just one state....
[13:26] Teleo Aeon: yeah.. which is I guess, the primary reason that often makes me wonder if it is anything actual at all.. as a phenomena.. or we just end up thinking we are sure, it must be. :)
[13:26] herman Bergson: in future lectures we'll look into the analysis of the concept of consciousness
[13:27] Teleo Aeon: sounds interesting :)
[13:27] Mick Nerido: It's a state of mind?
[13:27] herman Bergson: I mean ..consciousness....itis about our memories....
[13:27] Farv Hallison: one way of being aware is to have a bunch of sentence fragments we can sort through to figure out what to say... Is there anything else?
[13:28] herman Bergson: but also about our awareness of our ideas, our desires, drives....and so on
[13:28] herman Bergson: So there is a lot to tell about the concept itself already
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: is it alllow is it allowed to say that brain works with facts and consciousness with feelings, ... and both interact
[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: ?
[13:29] herman Bergson: if you want a straight answer LIzzy.....
[13:29] Mick Nerido: I think of it like a 3 way bulb the brightest setting is consciousness the lower settings unconscious thought
[13:29] herman Bergson: I would not allow such a manner of speaking
[13:29] herman Bergson: because you make the brian an agent and consciousness two....as if we are split in two...
[13:29] herman Bergson: that cant be correct
[13:29] herman Bergson: Besides that....
[13:30] herman Bergson: the brain causes, generates, is the origin of th emind and consciousness
[13:30] herman Bergson: the brain is the material thing....actually just molecules....
[13:31] herman Bergson: How can that generate what we experience as consciousness....that is the big question
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: so consciousness is a special function of the brian beside the working with facts, and supervising this?
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: in a special way
[13:31] Teleo Aeon: the more I think about it.. the more I buy into the emergent propertys, position
[13:32] herman Bergson: that is a better way of stating it it Sybyle, but in stead of brain I would use the word mind
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: okay
[13:32] herman Bergson: in fact...the word brain only refers to that grey matter that is in your skull
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: got it
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:33] herman Bergson: as such it isn't an acting entity...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: oh it continues
[13:33] herman Bergson: however, as I said before....that brain generates our consciousness....that is the mystery
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: but we start the next big arc within it
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: ups
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: sorry
[13:36] Teleo Aeon: they must mean, the point where an organism becomes aware I guess ? or is it limited to humans as being the only species ascribed with consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...today we have opened the final chapter of the philosophy of mind....
[13:36] herman Bergson: Oh no Teloe......
[13:36] herman Bergson: a number of animals have some kind of self awareness
[13:37] herman Bergson: Dolphins, elephants, chimps...they all showed to recognize themselves in a mirror....
[13:37] herman Bergson: even a bird…don't know the english name did so
[13:37] DOMINATRIX Babii: is consciousness not programmed into our mind by what we observe and learn as we grow up?
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): rico
[13:38] Farv Hallison: What is the evidence that anyone else or any other animal is conscious?
[13:38] herman Bergson: consciousness and self awareness is not s specific human ability
[13:38] Teleo Aeon: nods.. well in an important sense, I ascribe most creatures to be conscious in a central and important sense... but I think humans are a special case... so there are other problems with that then
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes indeed Teleo....
[13:38] herman Bergson: there is a difference in degree of consciousness
[13:39] Teleo Aeon: thats why I tend to often prefer awareness I suppose.
[13:39] Teleo Aeon: as a differentiator between what I'd call consciously human
[13:40] herman Bergson: I don't think you can uphold that 100%
[13:40] herman Bergson: Indeed an insect reacts to it environment....
[13:40] Farv Hallison: WE have visual and language images, even smell.
[13:40] herman Bergson: so you could assume a kind of consciousness there....
[13:40] DOMINATRIX Babii: all animals have those senses
[13:40] herman Bergson: but that is far away from our level.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but self awareness is a special feature of us....
[13:41] herman Bergson: but as of some animals....not all, far from that
[13:41] herman Bergson: but some animals are self aware....
[13:41] herman Bergson: so we are not unique in that sense
[13:41] Farv Hallison: we have the ability to deside whether to react to a sense datum.
[13:41] DOMINATRIX Babii: when animals preen...is that not a form of self awareness?
[13:42] herman Bergson: preen?
[13:42] Teleo Aeon: good point DOM
[13:42] herman Bergson: don't know the word...I am sorry ㋡
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: its may be too much mechanical
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: clean themselves
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Farv…we do not necessarily behave according instincs
[13:43] Teleo Aeon: well maybe that points to self awareness as a more instictual level than one would normally consider.. perfectly possible I gues
[13:43] Teleo Aeon: DOM
[13:43] DOMINATRIX Babii: yes
[13:43] Farv Hallison: preen is like when a girl fluffs her hair so you notive her.
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ahh..I see....
[13:44] herman Bergson: among humans it can be a culturally determined behavior
[13:44] herman Bergson: for animals it is just instinct
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: so the difference is, that we can decide if we do so?
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: it seems to be dependent of brain structure, an amoeba surely hasn't a consciousness
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: and react against all rules?
[13:45] herman Bergson: They do it to survive.....not to look pretty ㋡
[13:45] Teleo Aeon: the advertising agencies might argue with you about that herm. :)
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: we do look pretty to survive too
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: after darwin
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: or better according to
[13:46] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:46] DOMINATRIX Babii: a peacock raises its tail to attract a female...
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: yess
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we cán survive ugly...
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thats why we can decide how to act#
[13:46] druth Vlodovic: not if we want kids
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes....ugly men exist and have a wife
[13:46] DOMINATRIX Babii: lol
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes...true
[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): if they have money...
[13:46] Mick Nerido: Seeing your reflection in a mirror is conciousnes
[13:47] Teleo Aeon: and I've seen the other way round too
[13:47] Lizzy Pleides: but maybe they are intelligent
[13:47] Teleo Aeon: it's just the media doesn't seem to like to show those pictures :p
[13:47] herman Bergson: true Teleo
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: beatuy means not automatically attractivity
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: and vice versa
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: but if they preen doesn't that imply that they can imagine how they look to another creature?
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well...I notice that you are conscious of a lot of things ^_^
[13:48] herman Bergson: This means that we have a lot to discuss in coming lectures:)
[13:48] Teleo Aeon: you should see these amaizing constructed gardens the Bird of PAradise makes for it's mating ritual... pretty outstanding
[13:48] herman Bergson: Thank you all for you participation....
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we never stop to discuss here:)
[13:48] Teleo Aeon: thanks herm
[13:48] herman Bergson: I know the solution Beertje
[13:49] herman Bergson: CLASS DISMISSED ㋡
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: great Herman.. you led us well
[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant Herman, Thank you!
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): smiles..
[13:49] DOMINATRIX Babii: thank you herman :)
[[13:49] herman Bergson: Druth , are you there?
[13:50] Farv Hallison: Thank you professor Bergson
[13:50] druth Vlodovic: somewhere :)
[13:50] herman Bergson: I see a clould behind Beertje even without a name tag
[13:50] Farv Hallison: hello druth
[13:50] herman Bergson: Must be you Druth
[13:51] Farv Hallison: you look like a cloud druth.
[13:51] Lizzy Pleides: can a cloud have consciousness?
[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you can see Druth now?
[13:51] herman Bergson: no...
[13:51] druth Vlodovic: ah, I didn't realize I was so well hidden, old computer
[13:51] Farv Hallison paid you L$100.
[13:51] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Farv Hallison donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i can only see here head
[13:52] Farv Hallison: You still look pretty, druth.
[13:52] Teleo Aeon: thanks :)
[13:52] CONNIE Eichel: great class, i was a bit lost in IMs :)
[13:52] druth Vlodovic: that's al I brought, saves bandwidth
[13:52] CONNIE Eichel paid you L$50.
[13:52] Guestboook van tipjar stand: CONNIE Eichel donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!
[13:52] DOMINATRIX Babii: it was wonderful...thank you so much :)
[13:52] herman Bergson: My pleasure Domi
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: great class, as always :)
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was great
[13:53] herman Bergson: thank you CONNIE ㋡
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: :)
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: time to go... till next time, kisses :)
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry about your floor..
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: bye Connie
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye CONNIE
[13:53] Farv Hallison: kiddrd CONNIOE
[13:53] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye :)
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Good byee Herman
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: bye conny
[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy
[13:54] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman, FArv
[13:54] druth Vlodovic: bye herman, thank you
[13:54] Sybyle Perdide: druth
[13:54] herman Bergson: You have your name tag now druth
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: I see it
[13:55] herman Bergson: try Ctr + Alt + R
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: I'm off to a pseudo-buddhist thing now, I don't know if you are interested in such things
[13:56] druth Vlodovic: you're welcome to come if you are
[13:56] herman Bergson: I was there once with you...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: what did you think?
[13:57] herman Bergson: the meditation place
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: related
[13:57] herman Bergson: not really ㋡
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: ok :)
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: I hope I can make it on time next time
[13:58] druth Vlodovic: see you then
[13:58] herman Bergson: take care druth

367: The Connectionist Brain

A last look at the mind as a computer. In the previous lecture we discussed the Computational Theory of Mind, the theory also known as computationalism.

The basic idea is, of course, that a computer apparently seems to operate exactly like the brain and thence the computationalists focused on the reasoning capability of the mind.

Allow me to oversimplify, for this can become very technical otherwise. The computationalists saw the mind as using a kind of language of thought with its own rules and syntax.

However, there were others who had a closer look at the brain itself. What they saw was not some logic machine, but networks of neurons and synapses. Whole networks of them.

In the picure behind me you see a schematic representation of a neural network. As I said , I simplify, but you could read it as such. When you look at all the lines you may understand why this theory is called connectionism.

You get a multitude of input, this is evaluated in that 'hidden layer' and leads to an output. Example: the sonar of a submarine tries to identify mines underwater.

The sonar receives a sound (Is if from a rock or a mine?), a spectrum of frequencies. All the nodes in the hidden layer have learnt what frequency what mean and all hidden layer nodes inform the output nodes about their findings.

And when you take all these output data together you get the answer: "Sorry guys, that is a rock." Such a neural network doesn't know that by itself. You tell it, these are the frequencies, you receive when it is a mine, That has to be your output.

It gets an sonar input to practice with. It knows to what output it should lead and then it starts adjusting the settings in the hidden layer in such a way that it finally obtains the desired output.

It may sound like a simple process but it isn't. To "teach" a neural network (I mean a computer), it can needs hundreds of thousands of trails for learning a simple task. It learns by trail and error.

Is that similar to the mind? We sometimes only need a few trails to learn new things. Young children seem to master new words every two hours, where a neural network needs millions of trails.

Advocats of connectionism often emphasize that digital computers are poor at perceptual recognition but amazingly good at mathematical tasks and data crunching.

In other words,whilst connectionist networks are good at what we are good at and bad at what we are bad at, digital computers are bad at what we are good at and good at what we are bad at!

This is taken as evidence for connectionism and against the computational theory of mind . A nice try, but there are still so many problems left, that I think, that computers are just simplistic representations of some of our functions of the mind.

Take for instance rationality, logic. For example, there is a causal relationship between my thought (mental state) that Mr. X is dumb and my thought that someone is dumb.

The first thought caused the second, and there is a rational relationship between'Mr. X is dumb' and 'Someone is dumb'. Matter of simple logic.

Take this argument, for example: If Joann dyes her hair, John will laugh. Joann dyed her hair, therefore John laughed. A valid reasoning.

Now this one; If Joann dyes her hair, John will laugh. Joann did not dye her hair. John did not laugh. Hold on, not true, John did laugh. Oh sorry. Yes because Joann suggested to dye her hair. Therefore an invalid reasoning.

We need not much training to understand this simple logic. An experiment by Bechtel and Abrahamsen in 1991showed that a neural network could discover the difference between a valid and invalid reasoning.

However, we need to proceed with caution. To begin with, the neural network needed over half a million training trials to obtain an accuracy of only 76 percent.

Even with a further two million training trials the network was still only 84 percent accurate. This is hardly a triumphant result.

My conclusion? Despite all exciting futuristic science fiction computers from HAL to Data, never expect to find a mind in your computer, as the machine is defined as it is now.


The Discussion

[13:31] herman Bergson: Thank you.... ㋡
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman!
[13:31] herman Bergson: The floor is yours..
[[13:32] herman Bergson: I guess you all have to reset? ㋡
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL, resetting process starting.
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: maybe overloaded
[13:33] Lizzy Pleides: yes it was a lot of information
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: reebooting my saiyan drives
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but i think i got the most
[13:33] herman Bergson: take your time to reread it...
[13:34] herman Bergson: we'll wait a few minutes
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: seems fairly logical, that even after so many tries it cant get better results
[13:34] Mick Nerido: I have to go rescue a bird
[13:34] Mick Nerido: Bye
[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: may I ask..
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: the computer just program itself and then fiollows this new instructions but still don't understand what its actually doing
[13:34] herman Bergson: ok Mick
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: like we do
[13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: So we have the best computers already.. and the best brains?
[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: both can improve i guess
[13:35] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we have the best computers till now...they are going to be better and better..
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: you told us, a digital system is not good enough for a
[13:35] herman Bergson: Our brains are better than computers....or better..our mind is
[13:36] herman Bergson: There was the believe to create artificial intelligence...
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: the trails
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes cause we understand what we are doing, computers are much faster but they cant understand at all what they do and thus "training " a computer is very hard
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: cause as i said it cant understand at all what it actually does
[13:37] herman Bergson: and to some extend it was achieved...but not in the way our mind works, but how computers work
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: Maybe what I mean is ...our brains and computers are basic.. It is how we learn to use them in the future that will be improved.
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why do we want a computer that works like our brain?
[13:37] herman Bergson: and what these AI computers do LOOKs like how our mind works...
[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: the computer is a tool i think
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: good question Beertje
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: but only in limited areas
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok Beertje...
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think our goal should be a melding of brain and computer.. When our brains can effect a computer directly.. and get feed back from the computer.
[13:38] herman Bergson: What we want is to understand the mind....
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes..but why do we want a computer that works like our brain?
[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): what is the use of that?
[13:39] herman Bergson: when we can recreate in a computer what a mind does....it leads to some understanding
[13:39] Mistyowl Warrhol: Not like a computer, but with a computer.
[13:40] herman Bergson: well...to take it into absurdum....
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: Example, computer for stroke patients. in which the eye looks at the screen and makes changes.
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: a yes and you blink to click
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: i've seen a such one
[13:40] herman Bergson: if we create a computer that can take over all our htinking....we could go on vacation....
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: haha but how fun would that be after a while
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: We would not need a keyboard, just our brain to operate one.
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:41] herman Bergson: in a way that is the basic idea behind those movies
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: aaa
[13:41] herman Bergson: cyborgs...
[13:41] herman Bergson: the ones with Schwarzengegger...
[13:41] herman Bergson: ah
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: but remember how hard it is to even make a computer operate on speech
[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Naww, I want one to work along side my brain..
[13:41] herman Bergson: Terminator
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i don't want such a computer..i'd rather think for myself
[13:41] Bejiita Imako: i saw they did it successfully in 84 even
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje..that is the battle in Terminator...
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: our mind is not rational all the time, so a computer who had a mind, would be so too?
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: but still i cant get my machine to understand much of what i say with different programs
[13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): never seen the Terminator
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: and now its 2011
[13:42] herman Bergson: Good point Sybyle....
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: and if so, a computer is a logical working machine.. so it would get into trouble with itself
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: and would never be able to be like us
[13:42] herman Bergson: that is the quintessential point of my doubts about all beliefs in Artificial intelligence
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: well, then it is like our brains.. our brains get into trouble all the time.
[13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, mine does anyway.
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: some people don't have that, lol
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hahaha
[13:44] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see how cognitive scinece canmodel parts of our mind into computer models..
[13:44] herman Bergson: but it is only a small part of the mind
[13:44] Mistyowl Warrhol: But think of a computer, that could work with a brain, helping paraplegics to walk again.. People with brain damage to relearn..
[13:45] herman Bergson: what about desires, expectations, feelings, emotions, needs, despair?
[13:45] herman Bergson: In fact...Artificial intelligence already gives us a clue...
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: oh goddess, I have enough despair for my own
[13:45] herman Bergson: computers are related to intelligent behavior..
[13:46] herman Bergson: and indeed...computers can display intelligent behavior
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: a computer can be made to act as if it feels when given an input but still it stritly then only follows dumb instructions exactly how it should respond
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: only what we have told it
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: and it cant understand or feel them
[13:46] herman Bergson: no...
[13:47] herman Bergson: Our next station is the phenomenon of consciousness....
[13:47] herman Bergson: a mental state not a ingle computer has achieved except in Science fiction movies
[13:48] herman Bergson: That is the hard part for all theories of mind....
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): the hard part is yet to come..?
[13:48] herman Bergson: oh yes Beertje....
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: yes, staying conscious :-)
[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): omg..
[13:48] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:49] herman Bergson: Mick is trying to save a bird while he looks like a dead bird himself :-)
[13:49] herman Bergson: We have seen all attempts to formulate a thery of mind now
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: Mick is unconscious on here so he can be consious in RL
[13:50] herman Bergson: from dualism to connectionism...
[13:50] herman Bergson: and all can't explain consciousness...
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first person experience we have of our selves
[13:51] herman Bergson: That will be our final chapter of this project
[13:52] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is: Are we our brain?
[13:52] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: and if we are not, ... what are we?
[13:52] herman Bergson: or is the mind something more than just the working of the brain
[13:53] Qwark Allen: i think we answer that question weeks ago
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy...indeed
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or is the mind physical or something else. The brain being a vessel.
[13:53] herman Bergson: In what way Qwark?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: that our mind is our brain
[13:53] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): wb Mick
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes..but in what way...
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is the bird saved?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: when the brain is damaged, there is no mind
[13:54] herman Bergson: true...
[13:54] Qwark Allen: look at alzheimer patients
[13:54] Mick Nerido: No some people scared it away
[13:54] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): is that really true?
[13:54] Qwark Allen: they die completely oblivious to what is around them
[13:54] herman Bergson: yes ..all true Qwark
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: alzheimer, No. they still have a personality
[13:54] Qwark Allen: they even don`t know how to eat
[13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: The data is there, just the brain can not reach it to process it.
[13:55] Qwark Allen: in the last stages, they lost all capacities
[13:55] Qwark Allen: all
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but they still have a mind
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Can we teach the rest of the brain to take over control for damaged parts..
[13:55] Qwark Allen: the moments of lucid are so rare, that at a point there are no more lucid ones
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: That is possible in small children.
[13:55] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...
[13:56] Qwark Allen: to see that , we are our brain, we got to see, the ones with damaged brain
[13:56] herman Bergson: and the only cause is the breakdown of the brain...
[13:56] herman Bergson: they even can point at the proteins that cause it..or the lack of those
[13:56] Qwark Allen: in alzheimer, the neurons are substituted by aluminum plates
[13:57] Qwark Allen: heehhe in a joke, we can say, in the end we can recycle them
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: when there is an interaction between the brain and another structure and the brain don't work anymore
[13:57] herman Bergson: And Beertje said..they still have a mind....
[13:57] herman Bergson: and that is true too
[13:58] Qwark Allen: i have to go, was really nice lecture herman, one more step to realize what are we, and where are we going
[13:58] Mistyowl Warrhol: Just need to find a way to get around the block.
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes ㋡
[13:58] herman Bergson: yes Qwark...
[13:58] Lizzy Pleides: TC Qwark
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: bye Qwark
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: really great once again
[13:58] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC Qwark.. Tell Gemma hi and give her a hug plz
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:58] Qwark Allen: i think in the end, we`ll be half human, half computer
[13:58] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:58] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:58] Bejiita Imako: hahah ok
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ok hun
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: cyborgs
[13:59] herman Bergson: Resistance is futile..........
[13:59] Qwark Allen: something like that
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:59] Qwark Allen: ahahahh lol
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hehe was just thinking about the BORG
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: you will be assimilated, resistance is futile!
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: I just want to see through the universe..
[13:59] herman Bergson: We all belong in the hyve..
[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:00] herman Bergson: But there is one problem....
[14:00] herman Bergson: philosophically...
[14:00] herman Bergson: also with the BORG...
[14:00] Bejiita Imako: but the borg seems to be more machines then intelligent beings
[14:00] herman Bergson: They had that Queen..she had a MIND of her own????!!!!!!!
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: NO comment !!!!
[14:00] herman Bergson: so why was HER mind different from the borg mind???
[14:01] herman Bergson: How could that be?
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and 7 of 9 too
[14:01] herman Bergson: She had a mind filled with desires and goals
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: She was a woman.. and her mind was more complex for them to grasp..
[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ah
[14:01] herman Bergson: no...7 of 9 was just released from the bog and regained her human mind
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: aa yes she readapted to her usual self
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: thats how it was
[14:02] herman Bergson: yes ..
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: all borg implants was removed sort of
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: so she became human again
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: human
[14:02] herman Bergson: The philosophical problem is the Queen of the Borg Hyve...
[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cause in the beginning she wasn't cooperative at all
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: aaa the collective mind
[14:03] herman Bergson: She was as human as every individual human mind
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: and the queen like the master cpu with the borg as slave machines or clients
[14:03] Bejiita Imako: all thinking like a grid
[14:04] herman Bergson: no Bejiita..that queen had a will of her own...and the hyve just had to follow her will
[14:04] Bejiita Imako: yes she has but the rest are like one big mind taking instructions from her
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: She took in input and reprocessed it out.
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: its a bit like the LHC grid at cern, takes instructions from an operator
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: then use millions of computers to act like one big supercomputer
[14:05] Bejiita Imako: a collective mind
[14:05] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, bit my tongue long enough.. The rest were just not wired the same.
[14:06] herman Bergson: Again Bejiita.....the philosophical problem in the Borg issue is that that Queen had an individual mind....where did it come from ..where was it going to?
[14:06] Bejiita Imako: aa indeed
[14:06] herman Bergson: ok...
[14:07] herman Bergson: Resistance is futile..next class is nextThursday.
[14:07] herman Bergson: class dismissed
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:07] herman Bergson: and Thank you all :-)
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: this is awesome
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: thx herman
[14:07] Sybyle Perdide: it was really great, Herman
[14:07] Mistyowl Warrhol: Very good class. much to think about.. Ty human, Herman
[14:07] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[14:07] herman Bergson: thank you Sybyle ㋡
[14:07] Bejiita Imako: o time for Qs party
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: co soon all
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: hugs
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: cu
[14:08] herman Bergson: have fun Bejiita
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[14:08] Bejiita Imako: i will
[14:08] Mistyowl Warrhol: yes, just got my tp, but need to do something first.
[14:08] Mick Nerido: Thanks Herman
[14:08] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[14:08] Mick Nerido: I will read this later
[14:08] herman Bergson: did you save the bird Mick?
[14:09] Mick Nerido: It go away
[14:09] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:09] Mick Nerido: Maybe tomorrow it will come back
[14:10] herman Bergson: Bye Misty...