679: Sorry.....there is no Self...

Ok, according to Metzinger there is no self. He isn’t the only one who thinks so. Victor Lamme, a famous neuroscientist, shares his opinion.

   

Lamme suggests that in our brain the only boss in our brain, and not an intangible self that controls our brains in one way or another. 

  

What we call “the Self”, Lamme says, is nothing more than a “chatterbox” that tries to justify our choices and actions by retrospectively compiling a good story.

  

However, the real causes of our choices and actions have long been in our brain, and we have nothing to say about it. 

  

Metzinger and Lamme defend a form of 'brain reductionism', reducing the self to the brain.

   

Brain reductionists do not deny that we can have the experience of a self. 

  

On the contrary, they argue that people often think that they themselves are the cause of the choices they make or the actions that they make. 

  

What they deny, however, is that this experience is proof of the real existence of a real self. 

  

But is it true that we encounter it in the experience? According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), that is not the case at all. 

  

In his “Inquiry Concerning Human  Understanding” (1739) he gives the following description of his quest for self:  

  

-quote-“When I think deeply about myself what I call myself, I always stumble on some concrete experience of heat and cold, of light or dark, love or hate and pain or pleasure. 

  

I can never catch myself without perception, and can never perceive anything except perception. 

  

When my perceptions are absent for some time, like in a deep sleep, I do not notice anything about myself, and it is true that it does not exist at the moment.”-end quote-

  

What Hume points out here is that, although we smell, feel and see, we never encounter an 'I' or 'self' in these perceptions. 

  

The human mind, Hume suggests, is a kind of theater where different experiences make their appearance, come on, slip back, or fuse. 

  

But he immediately points out that this is actually a misleading metaphor. The theater really does not exist. 

   

In addition, there is no viewer in this theater: there is no "I" that perceives these perceptions. I am nothing but a collection, a 'bundle' of loose perceptions 

  

that follow each other at high speed and are in a state of constant motion. 

  

There is no unity here because all perceptions differ and there is no numerical identity as they constantly change. 

  

Hume concludes that the self can not exist as something that remains the same throughout the time.

     

The interesting to Hume is that he tries to explain how it is that we are inclined to see the self as a stable and continuous thing. 

  

He points to the human imagination, which means that we keep the objects we perceive the same despite the fact that they are strictly not the same. 

  

In particular, if the object of our perception changes gradually and unmistakably, according to Hume, we tend to think

   

that in that case it has remained the same over time, for example, a young plant that grows into a big oak. 

  

If the object changes suddenly and quickly, we think that it has become another object. But, Hume says, in both cases there is ultimately a change. 

  

The only difference is that in the first case we imagine that something is something that remains the same throughout the time. 

  

But that does not mean that this really also exists as a stable and constant object. 

  

We can of course admit to our tendency, and maintain that the objects we observe, despite their differences, are constantly the same, but with that we would fool ourselves

   

In other words, we may have the belief, that  in us is a stable and constant something, which we call our “Self”, 

but that is an illusion.

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: The main point here is...

[13:24] herman Bergson: that both..Hume and the neuroscientists assume that we can/have to be able to sensory experience / see the Self

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): makes no sense to me

[13:25] herman Bergson: the notorious...IT MUST BE SOMEHTING....assumption

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm head spinning but i think i grasp most of it

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): if it is not visible

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not exist ?

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interior self?

[13:26] herman Bergson: ok Gemma...

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they say?

[13:26] herman Bergson: Take this....

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i see what they are sayig

[13:26] herman Bergson: You go to the university and visit all buildings...

[13:26] herman Bergson: faculty this and that...they all exist...

[13:26] herman Bergson: then you say...nice...but where is the university?

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all of it is the university

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): parts of it

[13:27] herman Bergson: yes...Bejiita...

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: well but tomorrow it might be the town hall  because the university moved

[13:27] herman Bergson: but then you ask....does the UNIVERSITY exist....

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): eeeh yes it does

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i think

[13:28] herman Bergson: SHow me...:-)

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume thinks not i guess

[13:28] herman Bergson: you can't

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): is it because of the knowledge of the brain at his lifetime?

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think so

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): its the building called university

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that group of buildings = the university

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the whole body of everything is the university

[13:29] CB Axel: A university is more than the buildings.

[13:29] herman Bergson: We'll get to this in a next lecture....

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not have skin

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it is what it is used for

[13:29] herman Bergson: but this is an interesting feature of our way of thinking....

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and what is in it that makes it a university

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm indeed

[13:29] CB Axel: Buildings, students, professors, ideas...

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): especially when you do nto really have go to the university anymore can do it all on internet

[13:30] herman Bergson: one the one hand we look for a real object....

[13:30] herman Bergson: and on the other hand a word may not refer to a real object...and yet we assume what it refers to exists

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: that’s the point gemma

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:31] CB Axel: Hmmm. Ideas. Ideas are not objects, so they do not exist?

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): there is even one university near by that actually delivers diplomas in the big bus

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (system crash) SCREEEECH!

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ideas are indeed not physical but they still exist

[13:31] herman Bergson: The quintessential issue here is the meaning of the word "exist"

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm interesting ideas indeed

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone whispers: exist vs experience?

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume  believed what he  believed

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i guess everything does not have to be physical to exist

[13:32] herman Bergson: that is the point Bejiita....

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes "exist' refers to physical presence...

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sometimes

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes it does not, but yet we assume existence of what the word refers to

[13:34] herman Bergson: so the university "exists"....just like the building of the Department of Philosophy does

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the building plus what you use it for , physical + non physical thing define what it is

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:35] herman Bergson: an empiricist takes words primarily as refering to physical observable objects....

[13:36] herman Bergson: but he gets nervous when he has to deal with more abstract terms...like university...

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well we went that route before

[13:36] herman Bergson: then he gets into ontological problems....

[13:36] herman Bergson: yes we often did Gemma...

[13:36] herman Bergson: Guess you may graduate now :-))

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone has to sneak out - thanx a bunch everyone thank you herman

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye ciska

[13:37] herman Bergson: but we see this happen all day around us....

[13:38] herman Bergson: people who take terms as refering to really existing htings...

[13:38] herman Bergson: religions are good at that for instance

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:38] herman Bergson: Why fight for freedom and democracy....

[13:39] herman Bergson: but plz...bring me  this democracy thing....so I know what I fight for for instance :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: does democracy exist???

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not really

[13:39] CB Axel: Not in the US.

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as a concept yes, as a physical thing no

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): many facets of it do

[13:39] herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita....

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and unfortunatley not in many places

[13:40] herman Bergson: and a philosopher then asks...what is the ontological status of a concept?

[13:40] herman Bergson: is it only just in your head?????

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a way to do a certain thing i guess

[13:40] herman Bergson: or in the heads of may people...???

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to acomplish a goal

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or something like that

[13:41] herman Bergson: If so...why...and what does that mean

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dint think I can define it more then that

[13:41] herman Bergson: ok...our refuge.....the definition of a term...

[13:42] herman Bergson: But there we have to agree on the definition..

[13:42] herman Bergson: another philosopher's job :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Yet it is a constant fight we have to go though with what we call reality...

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very true

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:43] herman Bergson: anfd we can not give in or give up....

[13:44] CB Axel: I fight with reality all the time.

[13:44] CB Axel: And lose.

[13:44] herman Bergson: That is the quitessence of philosophy :-)

[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe you should fight another reality, CB?

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): perception becomes reallity sometimes

[13:46] herman Bergson: Hume , Lamme and Metzinger look for something observable, which they can point at as The Self...

[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe that is the wrong approach...

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it seems so

[13:47] herman Bergson: Psychologically what we experience in ourself as our Self is more a kind of organizing principle of the mind

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that makes sense

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and it progresses as we age

[13:48] herman Bergson: so the self is as real as the mind is...

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess you can say that

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that can be a definition of it

[13:48] herman Bergson: and nobody has seen the mind yet...but everyone assumes that the mind exists :-))

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess we had better assume that

[13:49] herman Bergson: well...sometimes you are in presidential doubt Gemma :-))

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:49] CB Axel: Self is what we call our thoughts and memories when we don't know what else to call them.

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good cb

[13:50] Quistis Hoorenbeek (quistis.shippe) is online.

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self = recursion back to well yourself

[13:50] herman Bergson: Maybe the perosnal narrative, that Dennett means...CB

[13:50] CB Axel nods

[13:51] herman Bergson: Well..I guess we paved the way for the coming lectures :-))

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess so

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): when i say I i refer to self but when i say you im not referring to myself

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i refer to someone elses self then you can say

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but self is always you and no one else

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it is recursion

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): basically

[13:52] herman Bergson: ok..:-)

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well time for me to check a thing out cu next time

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be hre tuesday

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we are done for today...unless you still have a question or remark left..:-)

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this gets better and better I think

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some head wrangling

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you think of things in ways you normally dont

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like that university thing

[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...that's what philosophers often do :-))

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah ㋡

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats what I like with it i guess

[13:54] herman Bergson: The goal is to get things clear...

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): makes things more interesting

[13:54] CB Axel: That's an elusive goal.

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes cb

[13:54] herman Bergson: Well....thank you all again...nice discussion....

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu soon all

[13:55] CB Axel: It seems the more we think about these things, the muddier it all becomes.

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hopes beertje does not blow away

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman :)

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye for now

[13:55] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): smiles:)

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)

678: Where is the Self.....?

In the previous lecture, we focused in particular on the question what will keep you the same throughout  time. 

  

Now we’ll make a start discussing the question of what the Self is actually and what we are looking for. 

  

Can we understand it as something that can be disconnected from body and brain, and can it exists on its own? 

   

In a way some people believe it can by defining man as a combination of Body, Mind and Soul, 

  

where the soul is the actual quintessence of man and will continue to exist after disappearance of body and mind.

Or is this not the right way to think about yourself? Is it a "thing" which we can perceive and which can occupy space? 

  

Or is it really different? We’ll first look at a number of statements by philosophers and scientists 

  

who claim that it does not exist at all, despite the fact that we may have the experience that we are a self or have a self. 

  

Subsequently, we’ll treat the classical argument of David Hume (1711 - 1776), who claims that we do not experience a self in sensory experience itself. 

  

Next we’ll have a look at the reaction of Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804). According to Kant Hume is quite right as he claims we can not find our Self in our experience. 

  

However, that does not mean that it does not exist. The Self is not given as an object of experience, but is a prerequisite for experience. 

The philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976), used the term 'category error' to explain, what goes wrong in the discussion about the self. We’ll look into this too, of course.

    

The philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942 - ..) argues that we must understand the Self as a linguistic construction: a 'narrative center of gravity'.  Interesting to find out what that might mean.

     

Next, we’ll look at the role of the body based on the ideas of the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908 - 1961). 

   

And, finally, we’ll discuss the tension between science and practice, and what this means for the reality of the self.

The reality of the Self? Has it got any reality? If we like to believe the German philosopher Thomas Metzinger (1958 - ..) we are mistaken.

   

In "Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity“ (2003),he states that no one has ever been a self or had a self. 

If you want to hear his opinion, the title of his next book is even more telling: “The Ego Tunnel - The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self “ (2009)

   

According to Metzinger, brain research shows that this is simply an illusion. In the brain we do not find anything that seems to be a self. 

  

Some brain scientists endorse this idea. They claim that it should ultimately be understood as a collection of brain processes.

   

It is of course very kind of these brain scientists to tell us, that we are waisting our time on something that does not exist.

   

However, as a philosopher, I would reply, that we still have this word and believe, that we can use that word in meaningful ways.

   

So, for a start, these brain scientists may be right, if you assume that the self is not some singular “thing” which sits in the brain.

    

But hadn’t we already concluded that this idea of a “thing like self” was highly questionable? Let’s find out what the self can be, if it is not a thing….

   

Thank you for your attention….. ^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

John Searle: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997)
Antonio Damasio: Self comes to Mind (2010)
L.de Bruin/F. Jongepier/ S.de Maargt: IK, Filosofie van het Zelf (2017)

The Discussion

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no one ever makes a final decision!!!!!!!!!

[13:19] herman Bergson: You should be happy about that Gemma...

[13:19] herman Bergson: Otherwise life would become so dull  and boring

[13:20] herman Bergson: Suppose we knew EVERY ANSWER...

[13:20] herman Bergson: What about our curiosity then?

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): id say self is more of a concept, refering to yourself

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): recursion

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think that is why i always liked history

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it has happened

[13:22] herman Bergson: In a way it is indeed...

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:22] herman Bergson: But there you have the interpretation of WHAT happened Gemma....

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes but it is simpler

[13:23] CB Axel: There are more than one version of every historical event.

[13:23] herman Bergson: Not two historians agree about WHAT happened :-))

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to decide which view you wish to take

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): with these philosophers it is never ever easy

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: heheh true Gemma

[13:23] herman Bergson smiles

[13:23] herman Bergson: I don’t do it on purpose Gemma :-))

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:24] CB Axel: I agree with Bejiita that self is a concept.

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes...and the analysis focuses on the reference....

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: yes I think that thats what Dennett hints at too

[13:24] CB Axel: It's just a way of talking about a group of brain processes.

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that sounds good

[13:24] herman Bergson: like the word "chair" refers to the thing you sit in....you can see and feel it...

[13:25] herman Bergson: so we wonder what the concept "Self" refers to...

[13:25] CB Axel: More like "thought." It's not something you can see or feel, but we have to call it something.

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:26] herman Bergson: This discussion already looks in the direction of Ryle...

[13:26] herman Bergson: One thing is clear....

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: its a concept run by biological action reaction systems -  experience of all kinds and inner linguistic concepts about those experiences.. thats how I see it somehow

[13:26] herman Bergson: the word "chair" refers to an observable object you sit on....

[13:27] herman Bergson: that does not imply that EVERY word refers in that way to something in that way...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Maybe the Dennett interpretation is attractive :-) We'll see

[13:28] herman Bergson: But what we really KNOW is that it apparently  is not something  tangible inside ourselves

[13:28] herman Bergson: Nevertheless...as I said...

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its not a physical thing

[13:28] herman Bergson: we can use the word Self meaningfully

[13:29] herman Bergson: Here we run into the same mystery Bejiita...

[13:29] herman Bergson: the brain is a physical thing......the mind is a......???

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: I still would refer to it as  a concept somehow

[13:29] herman Bergson: a feature of the brain....

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the closest explanation i guess is the brain is the hardware and the mind is the software running on it

[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska....I agree....it still feels like "something"

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but still

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ooh back to the computer analogy

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hard to grasp since we don’t know whats going on inside

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we dont know in detail really how the brain works

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but thats the best idea i can imagine

[13:31] herman Bergson: we hardly know how the brain works Bejiita

[13:32] herman Bergson: But the computer analogy is not the best one

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybe not but the only similarity i know to compare with that is graspable

[13:32] herman Bergson: it is even factual wrong if you agree with the Chinese Room argument of Searle, we discussed :-)

[13:33] CB Axel: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that.

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: check your notes ^_^

[13:33] herman Bergson: Or did your goat nibble on the pages :-)

[13:33] CB Axel: Yes. Computers can put words together in an order that makes sense, but it doesn't understand the words.

[13:34] herman Bergson whispers: Very true CB :-)

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true, it blindly follows code that manipulate electrical switchs but it can not understand or feel anything what it is doing

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but we can

[13:35] CB Axel: So how did we get so lucky?

[13:35] herman Bergson: it uses syntactical rules on symbols  only....

[13:35] herman Bergson: our mind deals with content...with semantics

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): also computers are digital, we are analog, computers see only on and off, they cant "see" the analog information that this stream of 1 and 0 represent like we can

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we see images hear sounds

[13:36] herman Bergson: And we must do it all ourselves ^_^

[13:37] herman Bergson: so lots of work for a Self here :-)

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:37] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi) takes a humble bow

[13:37] CB Axel: Hello, John.

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but my conclusion now is self is a concept, not a thing

[13:37] herman Bergson: hello John..

[13:37] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Hello

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hi John

[13:37] CB Axel: Right, Bejiita.

[13:37] herman Bergson: True bejiita

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hellooo

[13:38] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Hi there

[13:38] herman Bergson: And we have to figure out how to interpret this concept...understand its semantics

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that will serve us best

[13:38] herman Bergson: because..whatever any philosopher says....

[13:39] herman Bergson: I still have the feeling I can meaningfully talk about myself ..

[13:39] herman Bergson: I can even look at myself and disagree with myself

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): me , myself and I

[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Gemma and my shadow too

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah  yes that too

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:41] herman Bergson: It's kind like that...me and my shadow :-))

[13:41] herman Bergson: no me no shadow :-)

[13:41] Sandia Beaumont is offline.

[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok.... any questions or remarks left?

[13:42] herman Bergson: If not...thank you all again for your participation....^_^

[13:42] CB Axel: Maybe our bodies are the shadows of the self.

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Thank you

[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ....

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no new ones

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): thank you all

[13:43] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye for now

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) whispers: ㋡

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you herman & class

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): :9

[13:43] CB Axel: See you all Thursday.

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we do

[13:43] herman Bergson: See you CB

[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Bye all

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-) see you

676: How to stay yourself throughout time..?

In the previous lectures we have discussed the idea, that consciousness is a feature of the physical brain and the result of  (neuro)biological processes.

   

For the occasion of my birthday Bergie had made a drum with a series of photographs of me at the ages of 6 to 60. And yes…those pictures were all me.

   

So our primary intuition could be, that my bodily continuity through time is a perfect means to establish a person’s unique identity.

    

Of course it is important to be able to establish the identity of a person undeniably,  especially in situations, which concern personal rights or guilt.

    

There have been cases of individuals who committed murder and yet were not convicted. The reason always was, that they committed the murder in a state of sleep walking.

    

It was indeed their body that committed the act, but it was not their mind. A similar situation occurs, when a person is completely demented.

    

The body looks like the grandma we have known for years, but her personality has completely changed. She remembers nothing anymore, nor does she recognize you.

   

Thus for being able to say that you are still yourself, bodily continuity is ok in most cases but not in all. 

   

An interesting side track is, that such a discussion about a self and personal identity only occurs in a culture where the individual counts.

   

This individualism is characteristic for our Western culture. The ancient Greek already discussed the problem, which re-emerged among the philosophers of The Enlightenment about 1600.

   

Already around 500 B.C. Heraclites wondered about the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

   

It is called the Theseus paradox. The ship of Theseus was preserved and exhibited through the years.

   

But to keep it in good shape through the years the wood was replaced by new boards piece by piece and after ten years really ALL wood of the ship was replaced by new boards.

   

Are we looking at the same ship as ten years ago? If not, when did it loose its identity as Theseus ship? After replacing 10 boards…100 boards?

   

The situation gets even more complicated. The carpenter had saved all old board and used them to rebuild the original ship of Theseus.

   

So, now there are two ships of Theseus. Which one can be identified as THE ship of Theseus? In a qualitative sense both can, but originally there was only one ship and here it is about numerical identity.

   

Though the years all cells in our body are replaced by new ones and thence our physical continuity is not really the answer of the question how we stay the same person through time.

    

One of the first, who tried to answer the question, how you can stay yourself through time and total physical change was John Lock (1632 -1704).

    

 A human, according to Locke, is a certain sort of living organism whose identity depends on its biological organization. 

  

On the other hand, he defined a person as “a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places; 

  

which it does only by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking and essential to it.” 

  

Further, “as far as this consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches the identity of that person.”

    

John Locke thought it obvious that what makes people accountable for their actions is their ability to recognize them as their own. 

  

This seems to mean two things: first, an awareness of what one is doing when one is doing it and, second, an ability to remember having done it.

   

Thus, maybe the fact that we have our memories of ourself through time establishes our identity….

   

Thank you for your attention…. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:21] herman Bergson smiles

[13:21] herman Bergson: too difficult?

[13:22] herman Bergson: any questions then? :-)

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well I feel like im the same person i have always been more or less

[13:22] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita.....

[13:22] CB Axel: Not me. I've changed a lot.

[13:22] herman Bergson: But when you look through your photoalbums you see that little boy.....:-)

[13:23] CB Axel: I've changed throughout my life.

[13:23] CB Axel: And not just physically.

[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you are wiser now CB

[13:23] herman Bergson: The interesting thing in your remarks  CB is, that you say "I" !

[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): as we all are

[13:24] CB Axel: I'm not so sure about that, Beertje. °͜°

[13:24] herman Bergson: did yhis "I" change or is it the observer of the changing person?

[13:24] CB Axel: Well, yes, Herman. There is a central "I."

[13:24] herman Bergson: You see..!

[13:25] herman Bergson: That is the magical thing.....

[13:25] herman Bergson: We'll come to that but that was what Hume was wondering about too..... that central ME

[13:25] CB Axel: Yes, but not only have all the cells of my body changed, but I think the "I" has been changed piece by piece.

[13:26] herman Bergson: But it is YOU who is observing this CB?!

[13:26] CB Axel: There must be a thread running through that "I" but I am not the same person I have always been.

[13:26] CB Axel: The "I" I am today can look back on the "I" of my past and wonder, "Who was that person?" °͜°

[13:27] herman Bergson: Does it mean that you are not responsable anymore for  what your former personality has done, CB?

[13:28] herman Bergson: Imean....I can no longer convict you for what your former "I" has done.../!

[13:28] CB Axel: I think the statute of limitations has run out on most of my past "crimes." LOL

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:29] herman Bergson: As you see , it is rather difficult to get hold of personal idenitity......our Self...

[13:29] herman Bergson: Where is it/

[13:29] herman Bergson: ?

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some things might have changed with me but for the period i remember mostly I fell like i have been the same personality

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and it is also who I want to be

[13:30] CB Axel: I think spiritual people would say our identity is in a soul.

[13:30] herman Bergson: But all emories that you have forgotten, Bejiita?

[13:31] Zorba (code2.hax): I think our parents will often see us as the same person all our lives ;-) The irresponsible 8 year old who lost the money on the way to the market. :D

[13:31] herman Bergson: Ahh yes CB.....but that is the easy way out, I'd say..

[13:31] CB Axel nods

[13:31] herman Bergson: to begin with it implies a dualism....

[13:31] CB Axel: I think you're right about that, Zorba.

[13:31] CB Axel: Teachers, too.

[13:31] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:32] Zorba (code2.hax): frozen in time somewhere.

[13:32] herman Bergson: we don't need a body, nor emories to establish our identity...our self..just that soul

[13:32] CB Axel: Maybe our self is our memories.

[13:33] herman Bergson: That is what Locke assumed

[13:33] CB Axel: Babies aren't born understanding themselves.

[13:33] herman Bergson: the continuity of our memories makes us who we are as a person

[13:34] Zorba (code2.hax): The bible speaks of an essence of self that seems to transcend the body. Jesus said worry not about the one who can destroy the body, but worry about the one who can destroy the soul.

[13:34] herman Bergson: But there is a problem there Zorba.....

[13:34] CB Axel: My soul is toast

[13:34] herman Bergson: Locke already felt this....

[13:35] herman Bergson: At judgement day all will resurrect again with their own body.....

[13:35] herman Bergson: but like the ship of Theseus....is it their real body....or a new one that looks like their own

[13:35] CB Axel: Can't I get a different body then? An upgrade?

[13:35] CB Axel: CB ver 2

[13:36] herman Bergson: That is ok with me, CB :-)

[13:36] Zorba (code2.hax): the resurrected body is different than the current body according to Paul in 1 cor 15.

[13:36] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): are you sure the second will be better than the first body CB?

[13:36] herman Bergson: Not to Lucas 21:16-18 it seems :-))

[13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: @ the new body: it can be a chicken:-)

[13:37] CB Axel: Is 1 Cor one of the letters it's thought that Paul actually wrote?

[13:37] Zorba (code2.hax): 1Co 15:51  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 

1Co 15:52  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 

1Co 15:53  For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 

1Co 15:54  When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

[13:38] herman Bergson: hmm..what does that tell us Zorba?

[13:39] Zorba (code2.hax): What does it tell you?

[13:39] herman Bergson: That was not my question ^_^

[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): what does ithis all mean zorba, i don't understnad

[13:40] CB Axel: It tells me that Zorba likes reading fairy tales. °͜°

[13:40] Zorba (code2.hax): Anyway, my point about Christ's statement of dividing the body of flesh from the soul was a different matter .

[13:40] Zorba (code2.hax): That the soul transcends the body

[13:41] Zorba (code2.hax): I brought up 1 cor due to Herman's comment . Not sure if it addressed his point or not.

[13:41] herman Bergson: I am afraid that this leads us into a theological discussion Zorba.....

[13:41] Zorba (code2.hax): I think the philosophers discussed the same issue though.

[13:41] Zorba (code2.hax): the same question

[13:41] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): what is 1 cor?

[13:41] herman Bergson: Our main point is the question of personal identity....is there a continous self....

[13:41] Zorba (code2.hax): I understand that

[13:42] herman Bergson: corithians...

[13:42] CB Axel: Paul's first letter to the Corinthinans, Beertje

[13:42] herman Bergson: Letters from Paul to thos people

[13:42] CB Axel: Or however it's spelled.

[13:42] herman Bergson: indeed CB :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Adding a soul doesn’t change the problem.....for there too we need to establish the identity of the soul itself...

[13:43] CB Axel: Yes, Paul was kind of giving his answer to the question of where is the self. Obviously not in the body.

[13:43] Zorba (code2.hax): My comments were in response to this statement:

[13:43] Zorba (code2.hax): [13:32] herman Bergson: we don't need a body, nor emories to establish our identity...our self..just that soul

[13:43] Zorba (code2.hax): It opened up an interesting thread to me.

[13:44] herman Bergson: I see...

[13:44] herman Bergson: There are two things here....

[13:45] herman Bergson: on the one hand our common sense believes about our Self and our identity....

[13:45] herman Bergson: and on the other hand the philosophical analysis of this common sense idea...

[13:45] Zorba (code2.hax): I apologize for not posting the other reference:

[13:45] Zorba (code2.hax): Mat 10:28  And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

[13:46] herman Bergson: Not really a pleasant idea Zorba...

[13:46] herman Bergson: I fear those who kill the body

[13:46] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:47] herman Bergson: I know I have a body....and someone only can believe that he has a soul....

[13:47] herman Bergson: and I don’t believe i have one...

[13:48] herman Bergson: To establish my Self, my personal identity based on my body is questionable....

[13:48] herman Bergson: that to begin with....

[13:49] CB Axel: Early theologians decided that our self is our soul, but it's still a question we grapple with since there is no proof that a soul exists.

[13:50] herman Bergson: Establishing an identity based on the existence of a soul is questionable too....

[13:50] herman Bergson: itis about the question...who is responsible for actions...

[13:50] Zorba (code2.hax): The term soul was used  interchangeably by people. Souls of animals were mentioned meaning flesh and blood in those contexts, but Jesus make a distinction

[13:51] herman Bergson: Like the sleep walker experiences....not always the body

[13:51] Zorba (code2.hax): made*

[13:51] Zorba (code2.hax): Someone asked the question about future actions of the sleep walker. What should be done in your opinion?

[13:52] CB Axel: That can be controlled through medication and mild restraints.

[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes....that is a serious question

[13:53] CB Axel: It's called REM behavior disorder.

[13:53] herman Bergson: Such a person should take precautions....

[13:54] herman Bergson: Like in the famous Lebru case of 1880....

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): oki

[13:54] CB Axel: The comedian Mike Birbiglia wrote about having it. He takes medication (dopamine?) before bed and sleeps in a sleeping bag with mittens on his hands so he can't unzip it.

[13:54] Zorba (code2.hax): So if that person fails to follow instructions regarding precautions, and murders again, then they can be punished for the crime because they were irresponsible in their 'right mind'?

[13:54] herman Bergson: He should not have a gun in his bedroom to begin with...

[13:55] CB Axel: I would say that if they don't take precautions after diagnosis then they can be help responsible.

[13:55] herman Bergson: I'd say yes, Zorba

[13:55] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:55] CB Axel: Watch "Sleepwalk With Me" sometime. °͜°

[13:56] herman Bergson: A movie CB?

[13:57] CB Axel: I prefer the album he made of his stand-up routine, but yes, there is a movie.

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one thing i generally dont understand with sleepwalking and i have don’t this when i was little some time and i can not remember being aware of that i walked around but yet managed to find my way around

[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if im not aware of it how can I then navigate around

[13:58] CB Axel: I think I sleepwalked once when I was little, too.

[13:58] herman Bergson: I have no experience with that Bejiita :-)

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone tiptoes out - thank you herman thank you everyone - have a great day or night

[13:58] Zorba (code2.hax): tc, Ciska.

[13:59] CB Axel: Good night, Ciska.

[13:59] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Ciska

[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye ciska

[13:59] herman Bergson: Time to end our discussion, it seems ^_^

[13:59] Zorba (code2.hax): Thank you for the discussion, Herman. Tc all.

[13:59] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): bye Zorba

[14:00] herman Bergson: THank you all again...

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cause when i was awakened i remembered sitting in front of a door in another room but i was not aware of having walked around, not dreamt about that even

[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats the strange part

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): oki cu next time

[14:00] CB Axel: OK. See you all Thursday.

[14:00] CB Axel: I had a similar experience, Bejiita.

[14:00] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): wow I didn't crash :)

[14:00] herman Bergson: Never happened to me...

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): can take more on that next time

[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye for now all

677: Philosophers can be so tiring.....

A philosopher can be very tiring. Like Gemma loves to say: when you appear to have found an answer, a philosopher has found new questions.

   

I find the discourse about personal identity a typical example of this philosophical feature.

   

Intuitively we say, paging through our photo album, that little boy is me and there I was 21 and this is me now at 68.

  

We also see the enormous changes of the up growing body, but the feeling of “This is ME” doesn’t disappear.

   

But then there is this philosopher who say…..yes, but what when your brain is transplanted in another body? Is it then still you?

    

You might object…You can not transplant a brain. Way to complicated. Not yet says the philosopher, but suppose it COULD be done….

Philosophers love this game which these days is called a “thought-experiment”.  Totally ridiculous name, suggesting it is something scientific…you know..experiment.

  

But there is yet some truth in it. You may regard the  philosopher annoying with his questions, but that is the point. A philosopher calls you to the stand….and that is a good thing. 

   

Fortunately John Locke (1632 - 1704) didn’t focus on bodily continuity, but on mental continuity.

For Locke, memories are both sufficient and necessary condition for personal identity. They constitute a sufficient condition for personal identity 

   

because my memory of my former 'self' automatically makes me identical to that person. 

   

They form a necessary condition for personal identity because I only and can only be a person if I actually do things to myself remember.

   

But of course there is a philosopher again with that question. Suppose you are 20 and still have vivid memories of your childhood.

   

Then you are 68 and still have vivid memories of when you were 20, but no memories anymore from your childhood.

   

That would mean that the person of 68 does not share a personal identity with the person who was 7. Big deal ! ^_^

  

It took another philosopher to settle THIS issue. It was Derek Parfit (1942 - 2017).  He argues, that you should not take this continuity of memories that literally.

   

There is a psychological continuity. Five years ago you still remembered a lot of details from your childhood.

   

Now, 20 years later, you have forgotten about your childhood but still remember who  you were 20 years ago.

   

Thus personal identity according to Parfit is established by overlapping sets of memories of different time periods in a human life.

   

But what makes this issue so important for philosophers? Why are we waisting our precious thoughts on this matter?

   

The quintessence of the story is, that we belief that there is some constant in us through time. You meet this constant in statements like this:

   

When I was 6 I really was…..but at 12 that was over. I really changed when I was 20…and so on. There is some “steady observer” in this personal narrative.

   

That is the philosopher’s question. Who is this “I”. And there is another reason why we HAVE to philosophise about this matter: for  instance, War criminals.

   

If we have no clear and convincing arguments about personal identity and its continuity through time,

   

how can we be justified to sentence people who committed atrocities against mankind ten or more years ago.

   

Suppose Assad would say…having used chemical weapons against people. No…. no, that wasn’t me how I am now. Wouldn’t think of such a thing now.

  

That boms thrower was a different me. I do no longer recognise myself in that person, so you are not justified to sentence me for war crimes.

   

I guess the present philosophical situation is like this. This “steadily observer” of ourselves, exists. We all know our first-person statements,

but when “I look at myself” it really is a puzzle to figure out the ontological status of the “I”

    

Thank you for your attention….. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:17] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how can we forget our early years if being 7?

[13:17] herman Bergson: The floor is yours....^_^

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interesting steady observer

[13:18] herman Bergson: We haven’t the slightest memories of when we were two, Beertje

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): 4 yes

[13:18] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not 2 but 3 I have

[13:18] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...I love that idea too :-))

[13:18] CB Axel: I don't think it's enough for a war criminal to say "That's not who I am now." If they committed a crime, and especially if they remember doing it, they should still be held responsible.

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i do too

[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the problem is cb a lot were just following orders in order to stay alive i think

[13:19] herman Bergson: Ahh CB...there you hit bull's eye....the continuity of memories....

[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): how do you figure that out

[13:20] CB Axel: Yes, but I'm just talking about memory not motive.

[13:20] herman Bergson: they remember that they were following orders and knew they were immoral....if they had a conscious

[13:20] CB Axel: We can argue motive some other time. °͜°

[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's easy to say " it wasn’t me"

[13:21] herman Bergson: motive inst relevant in this context

[13:22] herman Bergson: It is difficult to grasp but there IS a Self...

[13:22] herman Bergson: I can LOOK at MYSELF.....so "!" and "myself" can not be identical....can not be one and the same....

[13:23] herman Bergson: but I am just ONE  mind yet

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): gets worse

[13:23] herman Bergson: I am not schizo....Gemma :-))

[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oh Gemma :))

[13:24] herman Bergson: There is another funny  thing.....

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: to get anything done a body must be set in motion. who does it - it does not matter if the one who set it in motion in the past is no loner there - if there is prove that body was "doing it" even the new person in that body must take responsibility somehow

[13:24] herman Bergson: Suppose you say...OMG "I am going crazy"

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: the more difficult thing is to define how to take responsibility htere.

[13:25] herman Bergson: And THAT Ciska hasn’t been the case....

[13:25] herman Bergson: the sleep walker killer was not convicted....

[13:26] herman Bergson: his "body" did the killing....not he himself

[13:26] herman Bergson: So..the body does not establish personal identity...

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: ys but he wasn't not convicted because his body did not do it - but because the consciousness which would be needed for being responsible was not there.

[13:26] herman Bergson: in our society we assume the mind does

[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and then the issue of drugs enters in too

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: so the body is still convicted

[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): mind altering drugs

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: but the "soul" is not

[13:27] herman Bergson: ahh yes....drugs and acts under influence of drugs...

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting ideas fir sure

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: yes but drugs on has to take

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: thats different then sleep walking

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: u cannot stop a person from sleeping

[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes...I agree...

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: when the person knows sleep = trouble he or she is responsible to take action in all forms possible

[13:29] herman Bergson: the responsibility starts from the moment you took the drugs...

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: but drugs is a conscious choice

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: at one point

[13:29] herman Bergson: that you can not say of a sleep walker

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but a drug taker does not intend to lose self

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): which happens

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: no but he takes the risk when taking drugs

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: thats a conscious action

[13:30] herman Bergson: no..he even hopes to experience a better Self...

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: the vw guys took the risk of lying about the diesel too

[13:30] herman Bergson: I agree Ciska...

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: and they got caught

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: of course they are responsible

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or he wants to escape from himself

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: ( to use a more "mild" form)

[13:32] herman Bergson: yes Beertje....

[13:32] herman Bergson: but he still is responsible  for his choice

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:33] CB Axel: I think only the sleepwalker is not responsible. But even then, once diagnosed with a REM behavior disorder, he is responsible for taking precautions.

[13:33] herman Bergson: well...as you see..personal identity is yet an important concept...

[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:34] herman Bergson: yes indeed CB

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:35] herman Bergson whispers: Guess we need to meet someone who tells us that there isn’t a Self at all  :-)

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh dear

[13:35] herman Bergson: Nice subject for next Tuesday ^_^

[13:35] CB Axel: That's a possibility, too.

[13:35] CB Axel: We could all just be figments of someone's imagination.

[13:35] CB Axel: °͜°

[13:35] herman Bergson: Welll...we have come close to it today...

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: ❊ I am just a figment of your ⓘⓜⓐⓖⓘⓝⓐⓣⓘⓞⓝ  ❊

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:36] CB Axel: LOL

[[13:36] herman Bergson: if we assume that the Self is just the flow of our memories...

[13:36] herman Bergson: So be prepared for next lecture ^_^

[13:37] herman Bergson: It might be about nothing..:-))

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh boy

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:37] herman Bergson: Thank you all for  your participation :-)

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): who ever you are

[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): runs to the coffeeshop......

[13:37] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...^_^

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: thanx all

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu all

[13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you all:-)

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): was nice again

[13:38] CB Axel: So we should be prepared to find out we don't exist at all?

[13:38] herman Bergson: \o/.... weekend !

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ohhoh