skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The combined feature of qualitative, unified subjectivity is the essence of consciousness and it, more than anything else, is what makes consciousness different from other phenomena studied by the natural sciences.Of course this is not the ultimate explanation of consciousness. It has a lot more features, but especially its unity is the most difficult part to explain scientifically.No medical procedure to do with the unified consciousness has received as much philosophical attention in recent times as commissurotomies, more commonly known as brain bisection operations.In these operations, the corpus callosum is cut. The corpus callosum is a large strand of about 200,000,000 neurons running from one hemisphere to the other. When present, it is the chief channel of communication between the hemispheres.These operations, done mainly in the 1960s but recently reintroduced in a somewhat modified form, are a last-ditch effort to control certain kinds of severe epilepsy by stopping the spread of seizures from one lobe of the cerebral cortex to the other lobe.In normal life, these patients show little effect of the operation. In particular, their consciousness of their world and themselves appears to remain as unified as it was prior to the operation. How this can be has puzzled a lot of people.Under certain laboratory conditions, these patients behave as though two ‘centers of consciousness’ have been created in them. The original unity seems to be gone and two centers of unified consciousness seem to have replaced it, each associated with one of the two cerebral hemispheres.In an experiment a person was asked what profession he would choose, he said carpenter. Then asked to spell his choice of profession by using cards with letters on them, he spelled the word pilot.When such a person can't see his hands those hands could be typing, but when asked "are you typing" the person says "no". This suggest, that these patients have two centers of consciousness.I'll only draw your attention to this specific phenomena of the unity of consciousness. It is a complex subject and too big to discuss it here in full.To bring the discussion of consciousness to an end, let me point at another important feature of consciousness: intentionality. Conscious states typically have "intentionality," that property of mental states by which they are directed at or about objects and states of affairs in the world. Philosophers use the word intentionality not just for "intending" in the ordinary sense but for any mental phenomena at all that have referential content. According to this usage, beliefs, hopes, intentions, fears, desires and perceptions all are intentional. So if I have a belief, I must have a belief about something.If I have a normal visual experience, it must seem to me that I am actually seeing something, etc. Not all conscious states are intentional ; for example, undirected anxiety lacks intentionality.It can seem that consciousness and intentionality pervade mental life, but achieving an articulate general understanding of either consciousness or intentionality presents an enormous challenge.I leave the subjects of the unity and intentionality of consciousness for further study to you.The Discussion[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:19] Farv Hallison: Can a dream be intentional?[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): some say they do that[13:19] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): get the dream ready and dream it[13:20] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[13:20] herman Bergson: difficult question Farv[13:20] druth Vlodovic: "lucid dreaming"[13:20] Jarapanda Snook: In some dreams I am aware that I am acting with intentionality[13:20] herman Bergson: It is some uncontrolled random event[13:20] Jarapanda Snook: it is like I am consciously dreaming[13:20] Mick Nerido: dreams lack a conscious intention[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes jara....we talk and we think and believe in our dreams...[13:21] herman Bergson: That's the point Mick[13:21] druth Vlodovic: though according to the definition given you can have an intention you have no control over, like wanting to run away from something even if you know you shouldn't[13:21] herman Bergson: So it is a kind of in between unconscious and conscious ...[13:22] herman Bergson: oh yes druth.....[13:22] Jaelle Faerye: wait wait[13:22] Jaelle Faerye: but what tells me that this is not a dream?[13:22] Jarapanda Snook: mostly my dreams are just like watching a B-movie, but sometimes i seem to act very consciously intentionally[13:22] Mick Nerido: I dream of a solution to a RL problem, is that intentionalty[13:22] herman Bergson: one of the main point regarding the unity of consciousness is that there is so much more going on in your brain of which you arent aware[13:23] Farv Hallison: hello Hokon[13:23] Hokon Cazalet: hi =) just got home from work[13:23] herman Bergson: I am inclined to restrict intentionality to conscious mental states[13:23] druth Vlodovic: why?[13:24] herman Bergson: because it is about the fact that thought, believes desires etc are always about something....[13:24] Jarapanda Snook: maybe that is a flawed assumption?[13:25] herman Bergson: there is a clear relation between being conscious and the about of what you are conscious of.[13:25] herman Bergson: Dreams don't fit into that picture[13:25] Farv Hallison: Do the objects in SL qualify as things?[13:25] Jarapanda Snook: so where does the subconscious come in ?[13:25] Hokon Cazalet: dreams are about something, though dream-less sleep def doesnt fit[13:25] herman Bergson: After waking up you can be aware of your dream[13:26] Hokon Cazalet: during my dreams i look and use things, albeit its an illusion, but there is still content to my fantasies[13:26] herman Bergson: I don't know what to do with dreams....[13:26] herman Bergson: yes in dreams you seem to have intentional conscious mental states[13:26] druth Vlodovic: but if impulses are included in intentionality then anything you do started as an impulse and became a plan,[13:26] Hokon Cazalet: i simply say dream = vivid imaginations, my imagination of a unicorn has intentionality - its about a unicorn; my dream about fighting zombies has intentionality[13:27] Mick Nerido: That memory of a dream makes it a conscious event[13:27] Hokon Cazalet: i imagine myself gazing at zombies and i make use of imaginary tools - all of this has intentionality[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes hokon...you could say that.....[13:28] herman Bergson: with intentionality I only want to say that a lot of conscious mentla states are always about something[13:28] Hokon Cazalet: id be the same, i don't think all consciousness is conscious of something[13:28] herman Bergson: Believe me...I'd rather not dig into this subkject too deep :-))[13:28] druth Vlodovic: I'm actually interested in the idea of multiple conscious states, i've experienced evidence of this, odd that you are only "conscious" of one conscious state at a time[13:28] Hokon Cazalet: hehe =)[13:28] herman Bergson: because philosophically it is really complex[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: and psychologically complex[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: id agree =)[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: i like what druth said also, only being conscious of one thing at a time - might be tied into the unity of intentional consciousness[13:29] Hokon Cazalet: but i'm not sure its necessary[13:29] herman Bergson: just look at these four statements regarding intentionality[13:30] herman Bergson: Consciousness is explanatorily derived from intentionality. Consciousness is underived and separable from intentionality. Consciousness is underived but also inseparable from intentionality. Consciousness is underived from, inseparable from, and essential to intentionality.[13:30] Hokon Cazalet looks[13:30] Jarapanda Snook: but I am aware of 2 simultanious states of consciousness - like a foreground an background - at the same time[13:30] herman Bergson: I just give you the statements to show you how complex the issue of intentionality can become[13:30] druth Vlodovic: do people ever register on instruments as being conscious when they are not experiencing consciousness?[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): sure is[13:31] Hokon Cazalet: position one is false, the concept of intentionality gives no useful or specific predictions; correct jarapanda [actually husserl discusses that in Ideas I, that not all thoughts are necessarily part of the intentional act][13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): especially if multi tasking[13:31] herman Bergson: yes jara That is one of the features of consciousness[13:31] herman Bergson: the distinction between Center and Periphery of attention[13:31] Jarapanda Snook: right[13:32] herman Bergson: Such features are open to scientific research....[13:32] Hokon Cazalet: yup[13:32] herman Bergson: psychology and neuroscience for instance[13:33] herman Bergson: And I guess that there is a lot of research going on in that area[13:34] herman Bergson: A thing I haven't mentioned regarding the unified consciousness is concepts like personal identity and the Self[13:34] herman Bergson: a complete new chapter....[13:35] herman Bergson: I think we should discuss Daniel Dennett in relation to this.[13:35] Jarapanda Snook: is the Self focussed in the peripheral consciousness?[13:35] herman Bergson: there are theories that what we experience as our Self, is just something the brain makes up afterwards for us[13:36] Jarapanda Snook: like rationalizing dreams when we wake up?[13:36] herman Bergson: like the idea that we have a free will is also just a story afterwards....we just believe we have....[13:36] herman Bergson: something like that ...[13:36] herman Bergson: I am still studying on these issues..[13:36] Hokon Cazalet is also[13:37] Jarapanda Snook: do you mean free will physically or psychologically?[13:37] herman Bergson: The question do we have a free will? is a hot issue these days[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: question.. if we lost our 5 senses, smell, taste, touch, vision, hearing, would be still be "conscious'?[13:37] herman Bergson: psychologically[13:37] Jarapanda Snook: I am sure we would[13:37] Farv Hallison: hello Rodney[13:37] druth Vlodovic: so "experience" is just memory?[13:37] Rodney Handrick: Hi Farv[13:38] herman Bergson: our idea that it is WE how dicide in all kinds of situations[13:38] Qwark Allen: oh no! rodney arrived first[13:38] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: hello Quwark[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: hello Rod[13:38] Rodney Handrick: lol...hi Qwark[13:38] herman Bergson: You are too early.....^_^[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: Hi Rodney and Qwark[13:38] Qwark Allen: sorry delay[13:38] herman Bergson: Hey Qwark ㋡[13:38] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle[[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: Hi Qwark and Rod and the others[13:38] Jaelle Faerye: since we are at "hellos"[13:38] Rodney Handrick: Hi Jaelle[13:38] Jarapanda Snook: it's like The Waltons in here[13:39] herman Bergson: Well...I definitely will discuss the issue of free will with you soon...[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: what is your room, Jara? upperstorey left last but one?[13:39] herman Bergson: and also the idea that the brain in fact just tells us stories what we call our personal identity...[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: surely we are free to think what we like, but it is the transition to doing what we like that breaks down[13:40] herman Bergson: it is even worse Jara.....[13:40] Jarapanda Snook: I thought so...[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: They are here for Tues lecture.. lol ( I can say that since I was so late also!!!)[13:40] herman Bergson: They allways come up with the Libett story....[13:41] Farv Hallison: hello Mistyowl[13:41] herman Bergson: He discovered that when you decide to move your hand, the brain is already in full action before you are even aware of your wish to move your hand[13:41] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hello hugs to all :-)[13:41] Hokon Cazalet: huggles[13:42] herman Bergson: So when I say I want to move my hand, my brain already has taken that decision before I said it.[13:42] Farv Hallison huggs MistyOwl[13:42] herman Bergson: I still have to look into that matter[13:42] druth Vlodovic: "by the way, we decided to move you hand."[13:42] Hokon Cazalet: me too, i find that interesting[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: But that is logical, because the decision to move the hand came from the brain.[13:42] Jarapanda Snook: but you can think about moving your hand when it doesn't move[13:42] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Unless the hand just touch a hot burner, then.....[13:42] herman Bergson: yes you can ㋡[13:43] herman Bergson: But philosophically it has a ground....[13:43] druth Vlodovic: so is the consciousness just for learning and providing general direction?[13:43] Jarapanda Snook: and you can also think about not moving your hand while you are moving it[13:43] herman Bergson: when we are just material beings and all is governed by the laws of nature[13:44] herman Bergson: it means that all processes are determined...also what happens in outr brain...[13:44] herman Bergson: it is the classic problem of determinism and th epossibility of free will[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: some movements are reflexes[13:44] herman Bergson: yes Lizzy...completely controlled by the brain itself[13:45] herman Bergson: as you see ...we still have a few questions to deal with ㋡[13:46] herman Bergson: deal[13:46] Qwark Allen: heehe[13:46] Qwark Allen: we have more questions, then answers[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): always[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark, keeps us pretty busy ^_^[13:46] Qwark Allen: indeed´[13:46] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): there are always questions here after a set of lectures[13:46] herman Bergson: Does anyone of you still have a question?[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!![13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...[13:47] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): what is next[13:47] herman Bergson: Main issues are free will and Dennett....[13:47] druth Vlodovic: so the consciousness could be seen as a programmer, writing in the program but not causing the actual work to be done?[13:48] herman Bergson: the picture is more that the brain is a computer and consciousness the software[13:48] Jaelle Faerye: has a déjà vu feeling[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[13:48] druth Vlodovic: but if the consciousness doesn't cause, say, movement, but is informed afterwards, then it only provides the general plan[13:49] druth Vlodovic: so it is actually a step removed from the software[13:49] Jarapanda Snook: but actions like moving your hand are pre-programmed - like a muscle memory[13:49] herman Bergson: yes Druth.... some people hold such kinds of ideas...[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think the consciousness is the sixth sense, that takes all the data from the other 5 and translates them into something our brain can use.[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: im curious, what about actions we take that require a choice in less time than it takes for the brain to unconsciously process it? how much of a gap is there?[13:50] Jarapanda Snook: interesting, Misty[13:50] herman Bergson: half a second Hokon[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: misty, thats a concept Aristotle had actually, from De Anima =)[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: ok, thats short enough[13:50] Hokon Cazalet: so my question is void =)[13:50] herman Bergson: The remark of Misty is questionable[13:51] Mistyowl Warrhol: Well, it does make sense.[13:51] Mistyowl Warrhol: What.. you question me ??????? ROFL[13:51] Jarapanda Snook: the Sixth Sense is about intuition perhaps[13:51] herman Bergson: The brain is not a sense organ, but an information manipulating unit[13:51] Farv Hallison rolls on the floor with Mistyowl.[13:52] herman Bergson: and this information processing in the brain causes consciousness[13:52] druth Vlodovic: it's been studied a lot due to it's application to automotive safety hokon[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: hm half a second explains some of the weird stuff we do, such as recognizing ive done something out of habit, yet wrong for this situation[13:52] herman Bergson: I apologize Misty...^_^[13:52] Hokon Cazalet: oh ok cool druth, makes sense =)[13:52] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol[13:53] Hokon Cazalet: sort of jerked "whoops"[13:53] Qwark Allen: by that definition, we can extrapolate, that all living beeing with brains, have consciense[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes qwark....depending on the level of development of the central nervous system....[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: not necessarily - are ants conscious?[13:54] herman Bergson: Animal consciousnes is a serious subject[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): they move[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Yes-ah![13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): it is[13:54] Qwark Allen: ants have no brain[13:54] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°[13:54] Qwark Allen: lol[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: ant's probably have no unified consciousness, no real brain[13:54] herman Bergson: Ants have a brain Qwark :-)[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: I think they do[13:54] Jarapanda Snook: fish then[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes they do[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: they have ganglia[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes they have a brain...absolutely....[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): right[13:54] Hokon Cazalet: or whatever that stem is called[13:54] Qwark Allen: was talking more about mamal brains[13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: and they could have, just not near the stage of development we have.. and depending on the being.[13:55] herman Bergson: But the test of consciousness is often related to the mirror test[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: but you would not think of them as being conscioous...[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): they are extremely clever and organized[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: or do we me Self-Conscious...[13:55] herman Bergson: no ants arent conscious in the sense we are....[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: self aware?[13:55] Qwark Allen: no doubts about that gemma[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[13:55] Jarapanda Snook: individually they are not clever[13:56] druth Vlodovic: the mirror test seems to rely on the subject doing something we'd recognize as a reasonable response to recognizing itself[13:56] Jarapanda Snook: they have a hive cleverness we can't comprehend[13:56] herman Bergson: yes Jara..... when an organism shows self recognistion we must conclude that it has some level of consciousness[13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: and elephants? We know they remember and grieve?[13:56] Jaelle Faerye looks at her Werber books[13:56] Lizzy Pleides: thank god i am not an ant[13:56] herman Bergson: in that respect....just study the works of Frank de Waal[13:56] Hokon Cazalet: although something can be conscious without being self-aware [or is the philosophic definition self-awareness? i did find it out we didnt call dreams conscious states . . .][13:57] Jarapanda Snook: elephants, dogs and dolphins - I think those are the only self aware anomals[13:57] Hokon Cazalet: find it odd*[13:57] herman Bergson: he is an expert in animal behavior, especiallly chimps[13:57] herman Bergson: chimpansees too Jara[13:57] Jarapanda Snook: yes sorry[13:57] herman Bergson: But for instance an Orang Oetang not[13:57] Qwark Allen: and all wales[13:57] druth Vlodovic: if we tried the morror test on an animal that had some sort of superstitious fear about seeing another "me" as a bad thing then a "reasonable response" would be to attack it lol[13:58] herman Bergson: The whale is a very special creature....[13:58] herman Bergson: it is the only creative animal as far as I know.....[13:58] herman Bergson: it sings songs...I suppose to communicate....[13:58] Jarapanda Snook: they have a level of consciousness we would find it hard to comprehend[13:58] Qwark Allen: whales have the most sofisticated language of the planet[13:59] herman Bergson: but not like a bird always sings its same old song...the whale composes new ones all thetime[13:59] herman Bergson: somehting like that , yes[13:59] Hokon Cazalet: herman, this may have been explained already (and ive only explored consciousness with continental works), what's the definition of consciousness in this discussion?[13:59] Qwark Allen: and they have cultural language also[13:59] Qwark Allen: like some talk french and other english[14:00] druth Vlodovic: or maybe some animals are intelligent enough to know that they cannot be in two places at the same time, so they dismiss out of hand the idea that it might be "me"[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: where elephants have a very low infra sounds that can be heard by others very far and have some kind of respect for their deads[14:00] Lizzy Pleides: true Jaelle[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: they recognize and greet the bones of their dead ones when they meet them[14:00] herman Bergson: Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative subjective states and processes of sentience and awareness[14:00] Qwark Allen: you know rhinos are descendants of early whales?[14:01] Hokon Cazalet: hm ok[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): getting way off track[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: i think we are just discovering things[14:01] herman Bergson: looks at his watch.....[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: each and every day[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 'right[14:01] herman Bergson: we are a bit late....[14:01] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[14:01] Jaelle Faerye: and that in a few decades maybe all will laugh at those theories about consciousness[14:02] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!![14:02] Jaelle Faerye: and on this note[14:02] Hokon Cazalet: AHH!!!![14:02] herman Bergson: Time to thank you all for your participation.....[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: i wish you all a pleasant time[[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be here tuesday if I can[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): if not thursday as usual[14:02] Jarapanda Snook: Thank you Herman[14:02] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...[14:02] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman![14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[14:02] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`[14:02] Qwark Allen: thank you[14:02] Sybyle Perdide: thank you[14:02] Jaelle Faerye: thank you, herman[14:02] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye ㋡ [14:02] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Gemma
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. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -This unity, what is meant by that? Philosophers love to talk about mental states. Common sense thinking concludes ..ok so consciousness is a multitude of mental states.We are inclined to believe that mental states are a kind of stand alone states, as if consciousness is a kind of big container with all kinds of states on board.But while thinking about the text of this lecture I also can feel a pain in my fingertip, while I have cut myself, but yet I go on formulating sentences.In other words, all conscious experiences at any given point in an person's life come as part of one unified conscious field. If I am sitting at my desk looking out the window, I do not just see the sky above and a backyard and a lawn, and at the same time feel the pressure of my body against the chair, the shirt against my back, and the aftertaste of coffee in my mouth, rather I experience all of these as part of a single unified conscious field.So, when thinking of all these "separate" conscious states, in fact I am thinking of just a number of different centers of consciousness.It is a remarkable fact that within my conscious field at any given time I can shift my attention at will from one aspect to another. So for example, right now I am not paying any attention to the pressure of the shoes on my feet or the feeling of the shirt on my neck. But I can shift my attention to them any time I want.An interesting problem related to our experiencing the unity of consciousness is called the "binding problem" or how the unity of conscious perception is brought about by the distributed activities of the central nervous system.When I see an animal, brain scans show that a number of separate areas in the brain are active. Yet we don't experience a kind of puzzle in ourselves, which we have to put together. We just see a tiger and the environment.Just as the visual system binds all of the different stimulus inputs into a single unified visual percept, so the entire brain somehow unites all of the variety of our different stimulus inputs into a single unified conscious experience.This kind of instantaneous unity has to be distinguished from the organized unification of conscious sequences that we get from short term memory.For example, when I speak a sentence I have to be able to remember the beginning of the sentence at the time I get to the end if I am to produce coherent speech.Whereas instantaneous unity is essential to, and is part of, the definition of consciousness, organized unity across time is essential to the healthy functioning of the conscious organism, but it is not necessary for the very existence of conscious subjectivity. Also people with memory problems are conscious persons.This combined feature of qualitative, unified subjectivity is the essence of consciousness and it, more than anything else, is what makes consciousness different from other phenomena studied by the natural sciences.The problem is to explain how brain processes, which are objective third person biological, chemical and electrical processes, produce subjective states of feeling and thinking. How does the brain get us over the hump, so to speak, from events in the synaptic cleft and the ion channels to conscious thoughts and feelings?This qualitative, subjective unity, which we experience as our consciousness and emphatically this unity, may perhaps be one of the biggest neuroscientific challenges.The Discussion[2012/01/24 13:22] herman Bergson: Thank you...[2012/01/24 13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks..the floor is yours[2012/01/24 13:22] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant again![2012/01/24 13:23] harmoniasophia Scribe whispers: Hi everyone[2012/01/24 13:23] Farv Hallison: Thank you Prof Bergson.[2012/01/24 13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you , Lizzy[2012/01/24 13:23] Jarapanda Snook: well done Herman - that will set me thinking for days[2012/01/24 13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and ty herman[2012/01/24 13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********[2012/01/24 13:23] herman Bergson: That sounds good Jara[2012/01/24 13:24] herman Bergson: But the unity of consciousness is to me the greatest mystery....[2012/01/24 13:24] Mick Nerido: Do u think we will ever know how a brain becomes concious?[2012/01/24 13:24] herman Bergson: THAT is the big question Mick....[2012/01/24 13:25] Jarapanda Snook: What is The Id? Is that the part that we know as a cognitive unity, despite it comprising of nothing more than electrical pulses?[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: We know how molecules can get in a state of liquidity....we know the conditions...[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: Well Jara...that is the point....[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: how do these braincells do it....[2012/01/24 13:25] herman Bergson: the thing is....[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: not a single brain scans shows whatever unity...[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: But yet we experience it....[2012/01/24 13:26] Farv Hallison: Can a string of zeros and ones become conscious?[2012/01/24 13:26] herman Bergson: I would say NO...Farv...[2012/01/24 13:26] Lizzy Pleides: nods*[2012/01/24 13:27] Jarapanda Snook: If a series of electrical impulses in out brains can become conscious, can a computer ?[2012/01/24 13:27] herman Bergson: for the simple reason that they are produced in chips....not in th ecomplexuity of our brain[2012/01/24 13:27] Jaelle Faerye: i think if they could, our computers would have told us[2012/01/24 13:27] herman Bergson: You all are going too fast....![2012/01/24 13:27] Jarapanda Snook: well - what if the computer senses itself, regardless of the fact that it is in a load of chips?[2012/01/24 13:27] Farv Hallison: What if the values keep changing so if you watch them closely you can decode a message?[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: part of the processes in the brain is electircal...[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: but that is not the whole brain[2012/01/24 13:28] herman Bergson: We love to compare the brain with a computer and the mind with the computer program....[2012/01/24 13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: Is the function of consciousness, really something that evolved to help processs what our senses have picked up, so we can decide which data we have received is a threat vs food?[2012/01/24 13:29] Lizzy Pleides: it can only be a simulation or a copy of our consciousness[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: it is a simplification in my opinion[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy....of course computers can simulate waht a brain does....[2012/01/24 13:29] herman Bergson: but it still is a symbol shuffling machine....[2012/01/24 13:30] herman Bergson: with no understanding at all[2012/01/24 13:30] Agnos (agnos): Thank you Herman[2012/01/24 13:30] Jarapanda Snook: but how do we know that a computer of the future would not reach a level of complexity at which it becomes conscious?[2012/01/24 13:30] harmoniasophia Scribe: isn't the brain a symbol shuffling machine also?[2012/01/24 13:30] herman Bergson: I don't think that such suggestions ar erelevant, Jara....[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: We also could say...[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: how do we know how the homo sapiens will continue his evolution.....and grow wings for instance[2012/01/24 13:31] herman Bergson: no Harmonia , the brain isn't….[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: the brain works with meanings...symbols have meanings[2012/01/24 13:32] harmoniasophia Scribe: meaning is a symbol[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: for a computer no symbol has any meaning....[2012/01/24 13:32] harmoniasophia Scribe: you cannot have one without the other[2012/01/24 13:32] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): *smiles[2012/01/24 13:32] herman Bergson: it is us who assign meaning to what appears on the screen[2012/01/24 13:33] Sybyle Perdide: the pc is not the point.. imagine we have one, complex enough to "imitate" the brain.. what we need too, is a software.. and there we are again at the point were we are now[2012/01/24 13:33] Jarapanda Snook: how will homo sapiens evolve further, Herman. All of Darwin's forces have been taken out of our condition.[2012/01/24 13:33] harmoniasophia Scribe: when we speak of happiness we never speak of happiness in itself- e always reference it to something that causes our happiness - the form from which it was received - we identify objects with meaning[2012/01/24 13:34] herman Bergson: yes, harmonia....[2012/01/24 13:34] Lizzy Pleides: why objects?[2012/01/24 13:34] herman Bergson: and Sybyle...I only can point at th eChinese room agrument of John Searle here[2012/01/24 13:35] herman Bergson: Do you think so, Jara....?[2012/01/24 13:35] harmoniasophia Scribe: so our shuffles symbols by way of the meaning which is inteconnected to how we felt[2012/01/24 13:35] harmoniasophia Scribe: our brain^^[2012/01/24 13:36] herman Bergson: if evolution is an interaction between organism and environment we still see evolution[2012/01/24 13:36] Lizzy Pleides: we probably think in associations but is it an object always?[2012/01/24 13:36] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is this John Rogers Searle?[2012/01/24 13:36] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): (wikipedia)[2012/01/24 13:36] harmoniasophia Scribe: however abstract the symbol is - it still is an object[2012/01/24 13:36] herman Bergson: At least John Searle, Mick…don't know that second firstname[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Born 1932?[2012/01/24 13:37] Lizzy Pleides: for the computer i agree[2012/01/24 13:37] herman Bergson: yes 1932[2012/01/24 13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes that must be him then :)[2012/01/24 13:38] Farv Hallison: That is a nice year, when the neutron was duiscovered/[2012/01/24 13:38] herman Bergson: the neutron or the neuron Farv? [2012/01/24 13:39] Farv Hallison: neutron.[2012/01/24 13:39] herman Bergson: ok[2012/01/24 13:39] herman Bergson: You mean it was discovered in 1932?[2012/01/24 13:39] Jaelle Faerye wishes she would have invented the neuron[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: Well anyway....to get back to consciousness...[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: We experience ourselves as one person...an "I", a self....[2012/01/24 13:40] Farv Hallison: nuclear physics was invented because thety knew the the nucleous was mage of protons and neutrons.[2012/01/24 13:40] Jarapanda Snook: yes - and how do you see how future human evolution will affect what we call consciousness?[2012/01/24 13:40] herman Bergson: That is the hardest thing to explain neuroscientifically[2012/01/24 13:41] Jarapanda Snook: Herman - how do you see how future human evolution will affect what we now call consciousness?[2012/01/24 13:42] herman Bergson: That is a very complex issue Jara.....[2012/01/24 13:42] Jarapanda Snook: and one i ponder often...[2012/01/24 13:42] herman Bergson: on the one hand the human brain is inits basic responses to its environment still at the level of the chimpanse[2012/01/24 13:43] Mick Nerido: Is consciousness an inevitable result in our universe?[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: on the other hand we have the development of civilisation....[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: I would say it is a coincidence Mick[2012/01/24 13:43] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): People say then man has evolved very little in 100,000 years[2012/01/24 13:43] herman Bergson: not a necessary result of the configuration of matter[2012/01/24 13:43] Mistyowl Warrhol: But unfortunately, humans have learned to control their personal enviorment.. so they are losing the ability to adapt.[2012/01/24 13:44] Mick Nerido: yiu mean it did not have to happen...[2012/01/24 13:44] Jarapanda Snook: excatly, Misty - my point precisely.[2012/01/24 13:44] herman Bergson: I don't agree with you Misty..[2012/01/24 13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: We live in air conditioned homes and drive air conditioned vehicles..we do not adapt to extremes any more.[2012/01/24 13:45] herman Bergson: But there is a big distance between different aspects of our way of being.....[2012/01/24 13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I think I know what Misty is saying[2012/01/24 13:45] herman Bergson: Ah in that way....[2012/01/24 13:45] Jarapanda Snook: we now control our environment and protect the weak, so I propose that we may not evolve much further at all[2012/01/24 13:45] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): ooh[2012/01/24 13:45] harmoniasophia Scribe: we do?[2012/01/24 13:46] Mistyowl Warrhol: But those that live, say in Alaska or africa and have not the modern things, they will still be able to evolve.[2012/01/24 13:46] herman Bergson: well Jara....we grow older than our ancestors to begin with[2012/01/24 13:46] Sybyle Perdide: why not, Jara?[2012/01/24 13:46] Jarapanda Snook: what evolutionary forces are going to encourage humans to become, for example, more intelligent?[2012/01/24 13:47] Farv Hallison: We will let the non conforists die because they can't afford healthcare.[2012/01/24 13:47] Jarapanda Snook: that is due to increases in public health[2012/01/24 13:47] Mistyowl Warrhol: But As Jara is implying, where the weak used to die off, now they live and so it is not the strong that survive and reproduce.[2012/01/24 13:47] Sybyle Perdide: may be not more intelligent, but intelligent in another way[2012/01/24 13:47] Mick Nerido: We are all accidental ....[2012/01/24 13:47] herman Bergson: Hold on...!!![2012/01/24 13:47] Mick Nerido: not inevitable[2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: This is not right![2012/01/24 13:48] harmoniasophia Scribe: evolution is the process of exchanging equal and opposite effects - that this is the case - it nets zero - gives the appearance of pregress but is equal regress - and to the one who sees it as the case is doing the same thing over and expecting different results[2012/01/24 13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: but it is bad, that everyone has a chance now..?[2012/01/24 13:48] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): this is a bit off-topic but still interesting[2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: Does anyone know Stephan Hawkins???[2012/01/24 13:48] Lizzy Pleides: yes[2012/01/24 13:48] Sybyle Perdide: this frustrated man?[2012/01/24 13:48] Hokon Cazalet: yes[2012/01/24 13:48] Mick Nerido: yes[2012/01/24 13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: Love Doc, Hawkins, my idol !!![2012/01/24 13:48] herman Bergson: One of the greatest astrosientists of this century...[2012/01/24 13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yes i know him[2012/01/24 13:48] Jarapanda Snook: of course[2012/01/24 13:48] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Some say he is the most famous man in the world[2012/01/24 13:49] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): or... the most recognizable perhaps[2012/01/24 13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: For sure the most intelligent[2012/01/24 13:49] Jarapanda Snook: and amazing considering his health problems[2012/01/24 13:49] herman Bergson: He would have been dead as we wouldn't have kept the weak alive and took care of them[2012/01/24 13:49] Hokon Cazalet: correct herman[2012/01/24 13:49] herman Bergson: there wouldnt have been that great scientist[2012/01/24 13:49] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): But without reproduction there is no evolution[2012/01/24 13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: As I said, is it wrong to let the weak survive?[2012/01/24 13:50] herman Bergson: SO I guess that the weak - strong dichotomy is a bit obsolete today[2012/01/24 13:50] harmoniasophia Scribe: Hawkins is a joke[2012/01/24 13:50] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aww thats not nice[2012/01/24 13:50] harmoniasophia Scribe: the truth sometimes hurts[2012/01/24 13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can you say that Harmonia[2012/01/24 13:50] Hokon Cazalet: i'd also add, evolution does not favor intelligence or strength in themselves, what can survive until it reproduces it what goes on - what works this century may not the next[2012/01/24 13:50] herman Bergson: No Harmonia...that is an argumentum ad hominen....forbiddenin this class[2012/01/24 13:51] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): lol[2012/01/24 13:51] Jarapanda Snook: I suspect that as soon as humanity reached a certain point, when it became civilised and conscious, the natural forces of Darwinism were diminished[2012/01/24 13:51] harmoniasophia Scribe: In so far as psychology is concerned - I wholly agree with Einstein - we cannot fix a problem with the same mind that created it - and that is the case with all mans knowledge - he just continually excerbates the problem[2012/01/24 13:51] herman Bergson: frowns....[2012/01/24 13:52] herman Bergson: that is a kind of metaphysics Jara....[2012/01/24 13:52] Hokon Cazalet: i think so jara, given that we don't have isolated populations, we make ourselves more and more immune to changes in the enviroment [we make nature change for us], etc[2012/01/24 13:52] herman Bergson: you presuppose some kind of reality here with forces and so on.....[2012/01/24 13:52] Farv Hallison: no, we are still evolving by letting the fittest corporations survive.[2012/01/24 13:53] herman Bergson: Besides that....any evolution takes thousands of years...[2012/01/24 13:53] Hokon Cazalet: yup[2012/01/24 13:53] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): We can read faster than one person can write but not as fast as 10 can write[2012/01/24 13:53] herman Bergson: we can t see the changes[2012/01/24 13:53] harmoniasophia Scribe: oh Hokon that is merely the opposite side of the see saw - eventually we will push it past the limit and the sides will reverse[2012/01/24 13:53] Hokon Cazalet: dunno, oxygen producers were quite successful in changing this planet . . .[2012/01/24 13:53] Jarapanda Snook: NO - I simply imply that Man has reached a certain point, and we won't evolve much further. SO speculation about us developing into super beings is irrelevant[2012/01/24 13:53] Lizzy Pleides: we can watch differences in thinking between tge generations[2012/01/24 13:54] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): society is changing rapidly[2012/01/24 13:54] Hokon Cazalet: evolution doesn't imply super-beings btw, there isn't an Aristotelian ladder[2012/01/24 13:54] harmoniasophia Scribe: and eventually the planet will compemsate for our theft and push back[2012/01/24 13:54] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some changes are being seen, as we have better health, we are seeing ppl with higher intelligence and taller bodies, even in the last 100 years.[2012/01/24 13:54] Jarapanda Snook: I also suspect that this level of consciousness may be a limiting point for all intelligence in the Universe[2012/01/24 13:54] herman Bergson: Evolution is a randomprocess without a goal...so superbeings...why that direction?[2012/01/24 13:55] Lizzy Pleides: exactly herman![2012/01/24 13:55] Sybyle Perdide: yes[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: maybe eventually we return to the sea[2012/01/24 13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): No goal ... I agree[2012/01/24 13:55] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Dawkins says that[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: Oh does he..lol[2012/01/24 13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: I would love the return to the sea :)[2012/01/24 13:55] Mick Nerido: Most mutations are harmful...[2012/01/24 13:55] harmoniasophia Scribe: herman when you blow up a balloon past its resistance it will burst - not because it is intelligent or has a goal - but because it has a limit[2012/01/24 13:55] herman Bergson: yes...never rainy days anymore![2012/01/24 13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: evolution is a direct response to our eviroment.[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: Well my friends.....[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: looks at his watch...[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: A lot to think about....[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: awwwww I was so enjoying this[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: all will be in the blog , if you want to reread it[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: Thanks Herman for your time[2012/01/24 13:56] Mistyowl Warrhol: We were just getting started :-)[2012/01/24 13:56] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, a nice get - together[2012/01/24 13:56] Jarapanda Snook: hehe[2012/01/24 13:56] herman Bergson: This was a great discussion indeed Jara...[2012/01/24 13:57] Mick Nerido: Thank herman good lecture![2012/01/24 13:57] Jarapanda Snook: I thoroughly enjoyed that[2012/01/24 13:57] herman Bergson: so thank you all for you terrific participation....[2012/01/24 13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed[2012/01/24 13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thank you! Herman[2012/01/24 13:57] harmoniasophia Scribe: lol[2012/01/24 13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: awwww sniff[2012/01/24 13:57] Farv Hallison: Thank you for being provocative.[2012/01/24 13:57] Jaelle Faerye: thanks all[2012/01/24 13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanky Herman[2012/01/24 13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY, Herman. for a very thought provoking topic :-)[2012/01/24 13:57] Hokon Cazalet: lol, i just got here, i always fail when i say "i'll be there in just a moment"[[2012/01/24 13:58] herman Bergson: Allunanswered questions and remarks of you will keep your brain going....[2012/01/24 13:58] Hokon Cazalet needs a watch[2012/01/24 13:58] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Bye everyone[2012/01/24 13:58] Jaelle Faerye: bye Merlin
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. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.
Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -
Previous lecture I elaborated on the qualitative feature of consciousness. Closely related to this feature is the fact that conscious states only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal subject. In that sense, they are essentially subjective.
When two people listen to a concert or look at a painting their experiences may be identical qualitatively in the sense, what is it like to listen to a concert or look at a painting.
But additionally both persons add their subjectivity to that experience, which makes the experiences unique for every person.
Because conscious states are subjective in this sense, they have what I will call a first-person ontology, as opposed to the third-person ontology of mountains and molecules, which can exist even if no living creatures exist.
Subjective conscious states have a first-person ontology ("ontology" here means mode of existence) because they only exist when they are experienced by some human or animal agent.
They are experienced by some "I" that has the experience, and it is in that sense that they have a first-person ontology.
Many philosophers and scientists also think that the subjectivity of conscious states makes it impossible to have a strict science of consciousness.
For, they argue, if science is by definition objective, and consciousness is by definition subjective, it follows that there cannot be a science of consciousness.
It looks as if there is no objective knowledge possible of consciousness. However this is a mistake, caused by the ambiguous use of the subjective - objective distinction.
In one sense, the epistemic sense ("epistemic" here means having to do with knowledge), science is indeed objective.
Scientists seek truths that are equally accessible to any competent observer and that are independent of the feelings and attitudes of the experimenters in question.
"Rutte is the prime minister of the Netherlands" and "Rutte is a good prime minister" are two statements. The first one is epistemic objective, the second one is subjective, because it is a personal opinion.
But there is another sense of the objective-subjective distinction, and that is the ontological sense ("ontological" here means having to do with existence).
Some entities, such as pains, tickles, and itches, have a subjective mode of existence, in the sense that they exist only as experienced by a conscious subject.
Others, such as mountains, molecules and tectonic plates have an objective mode of existence, in the sense that their existence does not depend on any consciousness.
From this we can conclude that the ontological subjectivity of the feeling of pain does not preclude an epistemically objective science of pain.
Although the physician does not feel your pain, which is a subjective experience, he yet can have objective knowledge about your pain and its causes and help you.
Thus the subjectivity of consciousness does not exclude the possibility of objective knowledge about consciousness.
The Discussion
[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you.....
[13:20] Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::
[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant!
[13:20] Qwark Allen: seems we got back to dualism
[13:21] herman Bergson: The basic idea here is that if consciousness the result is of a biological process in the brain we can gain objective knowledge about the subjective mental states
[13:21] herman Bergson: No Qwark...
[13:21] herman Bergson: Only when you would agree with David Chalmers' ideas.
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yeah, Im not sure what dualism is
[13:22] Qwark Allen: objectivity/subjectivity
[13:22] herman Bergson: Dualism means that we have a body ...material....and a mind.....not material
[13:22] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Hmm something to do with Descartes as I remember
[13:23] herman Bergson: The dualist claims thus that ontologically there are two substances in the world...
[13:23] herman Bergson: material and mental substances
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Merlin that is Descartes..
[13:23] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): mm good :)
[13:24] herman Bergson: This idea of dualism is abandoned by almost all philosophers of mind and neuroscientists and so on
[13:24] herman Bergson: However David Chalmers is one of the few who defends some kind of dualism
[13:24] Mick Nerido: If we could mind read would that prove dualism or objectivism?
[13:24] Lizzy Pleides: it was too easy probably
[13:25] herman Bergson: Most people still have a dualist idea about body and mind Lizzy
[13:25] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): last time you told us we don't have a mind..and now you do..
[13:25] herman Bergson: while among scientists this idea is discarded completely
[13:26] herman Bergson: looks puzzled at Beertje
[13:26] herman Bergson: I hope I didnt Beertje
[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you did
[13:26] Lizzy Pleides: how can science be objective but the scientists are not?
[13:26] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): hahaha... look in the notes
[13:26] Qwark Allen: there was something about its definition
[13:26] herman Bergson: What I may have said is that we better can use the term consciousness than mind
[13:26] herman Bergson: because mind has so many meanings
[13:26] Qwark Allen: not mind, but conscience, i think
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But if you take mind to be synonymous with consciousness there is no problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: I prefer consciousness because it also is a neurobiological concept
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: wordbaggage
[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....and the word Mind has a long history in philosophy
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what is consciousness to a neurobiologist?
[13:29] herman Bergson: one moment Druth
[13:30] herman Bergson: I think the picture answers your question
[13:30] Qwark Allen: ㋡ ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:30] Qwark Allen: Hey! misty
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: hello Misty
[13:30] Jaelle Faerye: hiya Misty
[13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: Hugss everyone
[13:30] herman Bergson: Hello Misty ㋡
[13:30] druth Vlodovic: pretty :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: fascinating picture isnt it Druth?
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): 13:39] herman Bergson: but I prefer to drop the word mind completely...
13:43] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): how can i keep singing..you are always on my mind??...if i haven't one?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje....
[13:31] herman Bergson: as I said....
[13:31] Clerisse Beeswing: hmm good point beertje
[13:32] herman Bergson: I want to drop the WORD mind....not the phenomenon which we call mind or consciousness ㋡
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): confusing...
[13:32] Clerisse Beeswing: like braintease
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: "for everything there is a season, and a purpose under heaven" :-)
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes...I understand
[13:33] herman Bergson: just to prevent confusion I prefer to use the word consciousness above mind
[13:33] Claudei: Hello
[13:33] Jaelle Faerye: hi Claudei
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hello Claudia
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: hello Claudei
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: hi Claudei
[13:34] Clerisse Beeswing: Hello clauden
[13:34] herman Bergson: So our point today is that we can have objective knowlege of subjective experiences...
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: but there are strict limits I suppose
[13:35] herman Bergson: In fact is that what all neuroscientists do every day when studying the brain/consciousness
[13:36] herman Bergson: Any questions?
[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds for me as if we would describe consciousness with its borders without knowing the inner area
[13:37] herman Bergson: we dont know much about consciousness Sybyle....
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: thats what I got, Herman :))
[13:37] herman Bergson: What we know is that it is generated by the brain....
[13:37] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): its kinda hard to concentrate :)
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: so far I can follow
[13:38] herman Bergson: we know about a correlation between subjective experiences and objective fMRI scannner results...
[13:38] herman Bergson: the picture behind me is an interesting example of it
[13:38] herman Bergson: but what we absolutely don't know is how the material brain can generate that what we experience as consciousness
[13:39] herman Bergson: but philosophically ...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the quintessential question is....
[13:39] herman Bergson: what we call consciousness....in what sense does it exist?
[13:39] herman Bergson: what IS it....
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): physically, no?
[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: good question..sighs
[13:40] Mick Nerido: and why should it exist?
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): a function of brain activity
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Physically..in a material sense
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Its a mysterious thing
[13:40] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): what other sense is there?
[13:40] Mistyowl Warrhol: and does it exist in other places in the universe or just on planet earth?
[13:40] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): What about plants
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Is that a stupid question?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Francis Crick , I think it was, suggested that it was the 40Hz eleoctroning vibration or something like that in the brain...
[13:41] herman Bergson: No Merlin that is not a stupid question...
[13:41] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): but if fMRI shows it as physical activity, what's the issue?
[13:41] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): aaah ty.
[13:41] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): there are no stupid questions at all
[13:42] herman Bergson: The issue is, Penelope, that the fMRI scan shows only part of consciousness
[13:42] herman Bergson: For example....
[13:42] Mistyowl Warrhol: Some plants do sense things..so there could be a form of plant conscious.
[13:42] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): so ok, in ten years, they'll make a better MRI :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: there never has shown up an "I", a "Self" on an fMRI scan
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like chaos theory
[13:43] druth Vlodovic: the issue is that people think they are their consciousness and want to know themselves as something other than the effect of physical processes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes Druth ..and reality is that they aren't
[13:43] herman Bergson: We are the result of physical processes
[13:43] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): agreed :)
[13:44] herman Bergson: But indeed many people have great difficulty with that....
[13:44] Lizzy Pleides: it is like the question: where ends the universe and what is on the other side
[13:44] herman Bergson: due to religious ideas
[13:44] herman Bergson: nice question Lizzy....yes!
[13:44] Mick Nerido: The physical world behaves very strange at the micro and macro levels
[13:45] herman Bergson: what do you mean with strange Mick
[13:45] Mistyowl Warrhol: So is consciousness something the evolve as a protection process?
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Quantum physics for example
[13:45] herman Bergson: You only can qualify something as strange when you have a standard for normal
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ahh..yes
[13:46] herman Bergson: There seems to be something with matter that confuses us...
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): ooh mysty, YES
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): yes yes!
[13:46] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): smart!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Laws of nature enable us to predict every outcome of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: however ...Quantum Physics seems to show us that we cant predict everythinng of every physical process...
[13:47] herman Bergson: that there is a basic randomness
[13:47] Mick Nerido: The material world is filled with mystery, Black holes, consciousness etc...
[13:47] Sybyle Perdide: hihi
[13:48] Mistyowl Warrhol: My consciousness is a black hole right now and a mystery I am still awake :-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: yes Mick....
[13:48] herman Bergson: Just realize that what we call science these days is hardly 300 years old
[13:48] Mick Nerido: Misty I like that!
[13:49] herman Bergson: that compared with a history of million years of the homo sapiens in evolution
[13:49] Claudei: homo sapiens is not a million years old
[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): did they never think about this matter in earlier years?
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: but his evolution
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: or her evolution
[13:49] Mistyowl Warrhol: and so much that we have learned of humans has only really been in the last 100 years or less.
[13:50] Claudei: how far into species evolution are you going
[13:50] Lizzy Pleides: in other cultures they didn't have science?
[13:50] herman Bergson: the first toolmakers existed 2.4 million years ago
[13:50] herman Bergson: Use of fire 1 million years ago
[13:50] Penelope Apparatchik (penelope.grau): hey that's a good question Lizzy asked
[13:50] Claudei: he wasn't homo sapiens
[13:50] Qwark Allen: how you know that?
[13:51] herman Bergson: That is a good question indeed Lizzy...
[13:51] herman Bergson: To give you an example....
[13:51] Mick Nerido: i think he means our direct ancestors
[13:51] herman Bergson: till 1100 A.D the Arab culture was far more developed in science than the european...
[13:51] herman Bergson: they had great mathematicians....
[13:51] Qwark Allen: there was homo sapiens half million years ago
[13:52] herman Bergson: Then is vanished...
[13:52] herman Bergson: and the knowledge was through Spain exported to Europe
[13:52] Lizzy Pleides: even the egytians had, think of the pyramides
[13:52] Mick Nerido: all our tool have extended our senses and expanded or conciousness
[13:52] herman Bergson: The Chinese had great science...
[13:52] Qwark Allen: and much before that
[13:52] herman Bergson: yes....
[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): but had they great philosophers too?
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just their knowledge didn`t got to our days
[13:53] herman Bergson: But the europeans had some aggressive exploring drive...
[13:53] Qwark Allen: just in time rodney
[13:53] Mistyowl Warrhol: So the fact that some animals also use tools.. does that give credit that they might also have consciousness?
[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: hi Rodney
[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Misty...to some extend certainly
[13:53] Rodney Handrick: Hi Sybyle
[13:54] herman Bergson: There are even animals that have self awareness....recognize themselves in a mirror
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: Rod :)
[13:54] Rodney Handrick: Hi Lizzy
[13:55] herman Bergson: Welcome Rodney..:)
[13:55] Mistyowl Warrhol: Or duck and run when they have been caught doing something bad!!! Bad conscious... Sorry, couldnt resist.
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): hello Rodney
[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: but animals that aren't able to recognize themselves have individual beheviours
[13:55] druth Vlodovic: it'll be another blow to our ego to have to share consciouness with animals, then bugs :)
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Hi Beertie
[13:55] herman Bergson: I was just ready to end the discussion... ㋡
[13:55] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:56] Mick Nerido: Great class thanks Herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Hi Qwark
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** -O- **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:56] Qwark Allen: was very good
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): why is it a blow to our ego ?
[13:56] Jaelle Faerye: thanks Herman
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well Druth ...we have a high esteem of ourselves indeed due to our consciousness
[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we are animals too
[13:56] Qwark Allen: see what i mean, by just in time rodney
[13:56] Qwark Allen: °͜° l ☺ ☻ ☺ l °͜°
[13:56] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:56] Clerisse Beeswing: great class herman
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: lol
[13:56] herman Bergson: Indeed Beertje....don't underestimate the chimpansees ^_^
[13:57] herman Bergson: So...
[13:57] druth Vlodovic: well, I suspect low esteem, otherwise it wouldn't bother us so much
[13:57] Mistyowl Warrhol: Lots to think about and I only got part of the class.
[13:57] Sybyle Perdide: thanks Herman.. much to think about :)
[13:57] Qwark Allen: we just share 99.5% of our genes with them
[[13:57] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor
[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:57] Lizzy Pleides: Thanks to YOU Herman!
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark..and we behave like them too :-)
[13:58] Qwark Allen: eehehhe indeed
[13:58] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....
[13:58] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:58] Sybyle Perdide: great
[13:58] Rodney Handrick: wow...so soon
[13:58] Qwark Allen: see you next tuesday
[13:58] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday it is!
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: I am in hurry, .. good night everybody!
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a goodnight every one
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: night Lizzy
[13:59] Sybyle Perdide: bye Beertje
[13:59] Lizzy Pleides: waves*
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: Bye Lizzy and Beertje..TC
[13:59] Jaelle Faerye: Night Beertje :)
[13:59] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): waves:)))
[13:59] Mistyowl Warrhol: and anyone else :-)
[13:59] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Anyone have notes on the first part?
[14:00] Jaelle Faerye: it will be on the blog, Misty
[14:00] herman Bergson: I have a blog Misty
[14:00] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ah ok. ty. Sorry for being late, but had appt with oral surg and just got home and straight to computer.
[14:00] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I have the notes from 1 week ago
[14:01] herman Bergson: url is in my profile
[14:01] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): I dont know if that that was the first one
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ok, knew about the blog, just dense today LOL
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: I can go back and read up on old lectures :-)
[14:01] Mistyowl Warrhol: TY Merline :-)
[14:02] Mistyowl Warrhol: humm, Merlin ! Sorry for mistype.
[14:03] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): :)
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: TC all. til we meet again.. hugs :-)
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Misty
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: you too
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: :)
[14:04] druth Vlodovic: have fun guys
[14:04] Merlin (merlin.saxondale): Yes, I must go too. Bye all.
[14:04] Mistyowl Warrhol: Ty Sybyle and I will start readin today lol
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: bye Merlin
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: bye Druth
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: Bye Merlin and Druth
[14:05] herman Bergson: Bye Druth]
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: bye Herman
[14:05] Sybyle Perdide: I am curious how it will continue, Herman
[14:05] Jaelle Faerye: thanks again
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: see you next week :)
[14:06] Sybyle Perdide: good bye :)
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. These three essential features of consciousness are logically interrelated.
Qualitativeness - 'it feels like …'- implies Subjectivity - the quality of being MY experience- which implies Unity - consciousness not experiences as a big bag of individual experiences -
We all know that there is a qualitative difference - the how it feels… - between tasting something delicious, or listening to a beautiful piece of music. These experiences don't feel the same.
There is a funny linguistic phenomenon related to this feature of consciousness. Sometimes we describe experiences with the qualities of other experiences.
A sunrise that feels like a concerto of Vivaldi or a whisky in which you smell the robustness of the oak barrels it was kept in for decades. The rest I leave to the poets…..
When you listen to Searle you immediately feel, that we hit a sensitive nerve in the contemporary debate on consciousness.
Searle says: "Some philosophers describe this feature of consciousness with the word qualia, and they say there is a special problem of quaila."
It has to do with the materialist view and the limits of science. In fact the line of thought here is exciting. The basic problem is perfectly formulated by C.D Broad (1925).
A mathematical and chemical genius endowed with unlimited mathematical skills and gifted with the further power of perceiving the microscopic structure of atoms can not predict one specific feature of ammonia, namely its smell:
"He would know exactly what the microscopic structure of ammonia must be; but he would be totally unable to predict that a substance with this structure must smell as ammonia does when it gets into the human nose.
The utmost that he could predict on this subject would be that certain changes would take place in the mucous membrane, the olfactory nerves and so on.
But he could not possibly know that theses changes would be accompanied by the appearance of a smell in general or of the peculiar smell of ammonia in particular, unless someone told him so or he had smelled it for himself."
This issue was repeated by Thomas Nagel in 1974 in his famous article in Philosophical Review “What is it like to be a bat?”
He argues that some facts can only be captured ‘from a subjective perspective’.
He uses his famous example of bats to illustrate the point: Even if we knew everything there is to know ‘from an objective perspective’ about a bat's sonar system,
certain factual questions concerning bats would remain unanswered. We still would not know ‘what it is like’ to perceive a given object with a bat's sonar system.
When your dog or cat looks at you, while you talk to the animal, did you never had that desire to know what your pet actually sees.
Never had that wish to be a bird and see the world through birds eyes. However, we only know how eyes work and how sensory circuits in the brain respond to the input.
Thus the big philosophical question is: what is the ontological status of these quail. Searle is quite clear about this:
"I am reluctant to adopt this usage, because it seems to imply that there are two separate problems, the problem of consciousness and the problem of qualia.
But as I understand these terms, "qualia" is just a plural name for conscious states. Because "consciousness" and "qualia" are coextensive, there seems no point in introducing a special term."
Last word for the other party. The quote of D.C. Board has led to an ongoing debate know as "the knowledge argument", which means, that a scientist may know a lot but not everything and for a specific reason.
The knowledge argument aims to establish that conscious experience involves NON-PHYSICAL properties.
It rests on the idea that someone who has complete physical knowledge about another conscious being might yet lack knowledge about how it feels to have the experiences of that being.
Do you see the implication? Dualism is back on the stage fighting materialism or as it it also called physicalism.
The Discussion
[13:24] herman Bergson: thank you...
[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours
[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: brilliant Herman!
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: that was famous
[13:25] Farv Hallison: Thank you, herman.
[13:25] herman Bergson: thank you Lizzy ^_^
[13:25] Agnos (agnos): Thank you
[13:26] Mick Nerido: no two people see the world exactly the same because their senses are different so their awarness is different
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Mick…
[13:26] herman Bergson: Let me say is in common language, what philosophers seems to get upset about so much
[13:27] Farv Hallison: yes, I am keenly aware of Beertje's gown from the inside, but I don't know how she feels about here gown.
[13:27] herman Bergson: waits for other responses
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: and if we could catch these differences, Mick spoke about, we would not be able to "feel" them.. onl to describe
[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: we can alway see only a part and never the whole
[13:28] Mick Nerido: we can agree a color is red or green but what the color looks like to me may be differnent for each of us
[13:28] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i feel very good about my gown Farv..i made it this day and i'm proud of it
[13:28] herman Bergson: very true Mick....
[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: that means, we will stay caught in our own cognition
[13:28] herman Bergson: the philosophical issue here is the "I"
[13:29] herman Bergson: not what Farv sees under Beertjes skirt
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i wish i could see sometimes through eyes of someone else
[13:29] herman Bergson: `YES Beertje that's the whole point...!
[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: behave you Farv!
[13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: LOL I have really tried to avoid the topic of Farv and the gown :-)
[13:29] Mick Nerido: consciouness is a subject point of view taken to an extreme
[13:30] herman Bergson: Very good Misty...
[13:30] Sybyle Perdide: but, if you do so, you would have to be yourself on the other hand, to recognize the differences
[13:30] herman Bergson: Leave it to the professor..lol
[13:30] herman Bergson: Ahh Sybyle...yes ...
[13:31] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i see my world in 2D..it would be exiting to see it in 3D
[13:31] herman Bergson: But just to know what your whatever sees....
[13:31] Sybyle Perdide: could it be possible.. if I got someones point of view to differ from my own completely?
[13:32] herman Bergson: even if we technologically succeeded in implanting all kinds of electrodes in the brain of my cat...
[13:32] Sybyle Perdide: to be able to see what is mine and what is not?
[13:32] Mick Nerido: when you read a good novel one can come close to being inside anothers conciousness
[13:32] herman Bergson: and i would see on a monitor what it sees...
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: and would it be enough to have her view? wouldn't it be necessary to have her feelings and so on too?
[13:33] herman Bergson: I only see what my technology has created to see...not what my cat sees
[13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: Events can change how we view the world. A lady who was blind all her life got sight.. She didn't understand perspective, so had to relearn her world so not to run into things. So while what we perceive today, can be different tomorrow.
[13:33] herman Bergson: maybe it is the same maybe not...I'll never know
[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Misty...
[13:34] herman Bergson: it isn't such a blessing to make the blind see or the deaf hear....
[13:35] Farv Hallison: I was blind to Beertje's underwear, but now thanks to a wardrobe malfunction, I see the world from a whole new perspective.
[13:36] Mick Nerido: that's called insight, Farv
[13:36] herman Bergson: Farv.....lol...
[13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: "duct taping" Farv hands before I get into trouble.. So how someone perceives something can effect our points of view :)
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well...
[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): blushes..
[13:37] herman Bergson: If there arent any questions or remark...
[13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: I was thinking what a lovely gown it is and wondering if it were new...and now...
[13:37] herman Bergson: unless about Beertjes underwear perhaps???
[13:37] Richard (richard.fonda) is Offline
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: what a funny lesson today:))
[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok...we have left the realm of philosophy here...
[13:38] Mistyowl Warrhol: I think Beertjes gets the A in class today for being such a good sport !!!
[13:38] herman Bergson: thank you all for your participation...
[13:38] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): yay!!!my first A in years..
[13:38] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.... 
