682: The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity

“What is a self? I will try to answer this question by developing an analogy with something much simpler, 

   

something which is nowhere near as puzzling as a self, but has some properties in common with selves. 

   

What I have in mind is the center of gravity of an object. This is a well-behaved concept in Newtonian physics. 

   

But a center of gravity is not an atom or a subatomic particle or any other physical item in the world. 

   

It has no mass; it has no color; it has no physical properties at all, except for spatio-temporal location. 

  

It is a fine example of what Hans Reichenbach would call an abstractum. It is a purely abstract object. 

   

It is, if you like , a theorist's fiction. It is not one of the real things in the universe in addition to the atoms. 

  

But it is a fiction that has nicely defined, well delineated and well behaved role within physics.”

  

This is how Daniel Dennett begins his article “The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity” (1992).

We can manipulate centers of gravity. For instance, I change the  center of gravity of a water pitcher easily, by pouring some of the water out.

So, although a center of gravity is a purely abstract   object, it has a spatio-temporal career, which I can affect by my actions. 

It has a history, but its history can include some rather    strange episodes. As an abstractum, it is not bound by all the constraints of physical travel.

  

A self is also an abstract object, a theorist's fiction. 

  

The theory is not particle physics but what we might call a branch of people physics; 

  

it is more soberly known as a phenomenology or hermeneutics, or soul-science (Geisteswissenschaft). 

   

The physicist does an interpretation, if you like, of a chair and its behavior,

   

and comes up with the theoretical abstraction of a center of gravity, which is then very useful

in characterizing the behaviour of the chair in the future, under a wide variety of conditions. 

  

The hermeneuticist or phenomenologist, or anthropologist sees some rather more complicated things 

   

moving about in the world, human beings and animals, and is faced with a similar problem of  interpretation.

   

Dennett concludes that The Self can be considered as a Center of Narrative Gravity. On the question “Who are you”, we begin telling stories about ourselves,

   

as if it is about a character in a novel, we tell our history and adventures in life and the novelist is our brain.

Thank you for your attention again ….. ^_^

Source

The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity

in F. Kessel, P. Cole and D. Johnson, eds, Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.

The Discussion

  

[2017/10/17 13:19]  herman Bergson: Feel free to throw in your questions and remarks :-)

[2017/10/17 13:20]  Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[2017/10/17 13:20]  herman Bergson: -Was it to o difficult?

[2017/10/17 13:21]  herman Bergson: I find the description of the Self by Dennett brilliant....

[2017/10/17 13:21]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the best way to describe center of gravity would be as a mathematical value or measurement of distances where balance occur in all directions but can you describe self in some similar way, both however are non physical things

[2017/10/17 13:21]  herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita....

[2017/10/17 13:21]  herman Bergson: Center of gravityI S a mathematical concept....

[2017/10/17 13:22]  herman Bergson: we use it to organize our world...predict for instance behavior of objects..

[2017/10/17 13:22]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and self is also some kind of concept

[2017/10/17 13:22]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not mathematical but still a concept

[2017/10/17 13:22]  herman Bergson: yes....you mentioned that already some time ago.....an organizing concept

[2017/10/17 13:22]  herman Bergson: I agree  with you

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Zorba (code2.hax): I must be missing something. Center of gravity is not a mathematical concept, but an observed reality. Things really do work that way. It's not an abstraction, and bejita's description is quite good.

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Zorba (code2.hax): It's something that can and is modeled by mathmatics.

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Zorba (code2.hax): can be and is*

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you can calculate the center of gravity but also observe it

[2017/10/17 13:23]  herman Bergson: I am sorry to say Zorba....but it is not a reality....

[2017/10/17 13:23]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): an object will not tip if at center of gravity

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Zorba (code2.hax): calculation can be difficult if you want to precisely find the COG

[2017/10/17 13:24]  herman Bergson: you can not see a center of gravity...it has no color takes no space and so on

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Zorba (code2.hax): It's as real as anything in our universe, Herman.

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you can see its effect however

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Zorba (code2.hax): or are you a Solipsist ?

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but not the point itselv

[2017/10/17 13:24]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): itelf

[2017/10/17 13:24]  herman Bergson: Hold on.....

[2017/10/17 13:24]  herman Bergson: Now we are drifting into an ontological discussion....

[2017/10/17 13:25]  Zorba (code2.hax): The COG is always there and can be demonstrated

[2017/10/17 13:25]  Zorba (code2.hax): .. observed

[2017/10/17 13:25]  herman Bergson: as a materialist I say that it is a mathematical concept and only real as a concept

[2017/10/17 13:25]  herman Bergson: it has no real existence as an atom

[2017/10/17 13:26]  Zorba (code2.hax): well, if you wanted to you could say that about anything in the universe that we observe, yes?

[2017/10/17 13:26]  CB Axel: You can observe that there is a center of gravity, but you cannot see a thing that is the center of gravity.

[2017/10/17 13:26]  Zorba (code2.hax): I don't think you can make that claim, Herman.

[2017/10/17 13:26]  Zorba (code2.hax): magnetic, gravitational fields are really things, but they're invisible yes.

[2017/10/17 13:27]  herman Bergson: If I would agree with you, Zorba, the Self would be a thing....which you can find inside my body

[2017/10/17 13:27]  Zorba (code2.hax): real*

[2017/10/17 13:27]  CB Axel: I can observe a block of wood, but I cannot observe a thing that is a center of gravity. I cannot remove the center of gravity and say, "Here it is!"

[2017/10/17 13:27]  herman Bergson: you apply the property REAL to a concept, which is a category mistake, which we discussed in the previous lecture

[2017/10/17 13:27]  herman Bergson: a stone is real, an atom is....

[2017/10/17 13:28]  Zorba (code2.hax): Herman, you're defining gravity by backing into it by using the analogy of self. You made a tie that you believe to be a valid analogy, and now are defining gravity by the nature of self. Did you really mean to do that?

[2017/10/17 13:28]  herman Bergson: Guess you misunderstood...

[2017/10/17 13:28]  Zorba (code2.hax): yep, must have.

[2017/10/17 13:28]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the importance is that both of these are concepts and not physical thing

[2017/10/17 13:28]  Zorba (code2.hax): None of this really makes much sense to me.

[2017/10/17 13:29]  herman Bergson: the center of gravity is an abstract mathematical concept.....

[2017/10/17 13:29]  herman Bergson: it is not real like a stone or atom....

[2017/10/17 13:29]  Zorba (code2.hax): Physics in my world is a reality.. Gravity is real, not a concept ;-)

[2017/10/17 13:29]  herman Bergson: yet an organizing principle in our world.....to understand and predict events

[2017/10/17 13:29]  herman Bergson: I am not talking about gravity

[2017/10/17 13:30]  herman Bergson: I am talking about a mathematical point in an object

[2017/10/17 13:30]  Zorba (code2.hax): I think it's fine to use analogies to try and explain things we don't understand, but it's not good to lose sight of the fact that gravity is not like the self, and the self is not really like gravity. To believe it to be so to me would be conflation in the extreme.

[2017/10/17 13:30]  herman Bergson: And Dennett uses this analogy to show that the concept of the Self is such a kind of concept too

[2017/10/17 13:31]  Zorba (code2.hax): Yes, I understood what he's trying to say

[2017/10/17 13:31]  CB Axel: He's not talking about gravity. He's talking about the concept of a center of gravity in an object.

[2017/10/17 13:31]  herman Bergson: As I said...I am NOT talking about gravity...

[2017/10/17 13:31]  Ciska Riverstone: I think you dislike the fact that the concept of self cannot be calculated as the concept of gravitiy zorba

[2017/10/17 13:31]  Ciska Riverstone: which of course is true

[2017/10/17 13:31]  herman Bergson: I am talking about a mathematical point in objects caused by gravity

[2017/10/17 13:31]  Zorba (code2.hax): objects that exhibit gravity tend to have centers of gravity as described by Bejita

[2017/10/17 13:32]  Ciska Riverstone: maths is just a relational concept which explains certain physical phenomenons in a way which is repeatable

[2017/10/17 13:32]  Zorba (code2.hax): It's not a matter of like or dislike, Ciska, it's a mater of physics and logic.

[2017/10/17 13:33]  herman Bergson: I think I am still quite logical in what I claim :-)

[2017/10/17 13:33]  herman Bergson: What this is all about is about the concept of the Self...

[2017/10/17 13:33]  herman Bergson: liek a canter of gravity, it is a center of narrative gravity....

[2017/10/17 13:34]  Zorba (code2.hax): Herman, I don't believe it to be a 'mathematical point'. It's a real physical point that the object can physically be balanced on. The math is only a map or model that could possibly describe it's location, but the location is real, not a 'concept'

[2017/10/17 13:34]  CB Axel: So the self is not real?

[2017/10/17 13:34]  herman Bergson: It means that when we try to understand what the Self is, we have to conclude that it is an organizing principle, concept produced by the brain to understand  a person and his behavior

[2017/10/17 13:35]  Ciska Riverstone: what’s math for you zorba?

[2017/10/17 13:35]  herman Bergson: no CB, not in the sense as an atom or a tree is real

[2017/10/17 13:35]  Zorba (code2.hax): I agree that understanding the self to be an issue. I don't disagree. Perhaps I see the analogy as being poor

[2017/10/17 13:35]  herman Bergson: Yet it exists in our mind.....

[2017/10/17 13:35]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[2017/10/17 13:35]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but it is not a thing

[2017/10/17 13:35]  CB Axel: Right. And the center of gravity is not real in the sense that and atom or a tree is real.

[2017/10/17 13:35]  herman Bergson: indeed Bejiita...

[2017/10/17 13:35]  CB Axel: *an atom

[2017/10/17 13:36]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its a rcursive concept when you sefer back to yorself

[2017/10/17 13:36]  herman Bergson: and the analogy is NOT about gravity, but about mathematics in fact

[2017/10/17 13:36]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): when I say I i refer to myself but not when I say you

[2017/10/17 13:36]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then i refer to someone else

[2017/10/17 13:36]  Zorba (code2.hax): it's a collection of gravitations forces of the particles that make up the object, and their gravitational summary center.

[2017/10/17 13:36]  Zorba (code2.hax): real stuff ;-)

[2017/10/17 13:36]  herman Bergson: Because we understand people as a Self...as a Person we can understand and sometimes predict their behavior

[2017/10/17 13:37]  herman Bergson: the same way we can predict the behavior of a chair calculation with tis center of gravity

[2017/10/17 13:38]  CB Axel: The self is a collection of experiences in our lives.

[2017/10/17 13:38]  Ciska Riverstone: i'd disagree there herman - because math will not bring u to understand and predict a person ;)

[2017/10/17 13:38]  Ciska Riverstone: whereas math will do it for the gravity center of a chair

[2017/10/17 13:38]  herman Bergson: no no...that is not what I am saying...

[2017/10/17 13:38]  herman Bergson: psychology applies here....

[2017/10/17 13:38]  Ciska Riverstone: right

[2017/10/17 13:39]  herman Bergson: math applies to the chair

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Ciska Riverstone: math applies to physics - as a concept

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Zorba (code2.hax): /me watches the analogy break down... :-(

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Ciska Riverstone: psychology applies to self as a concept

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Ciska Riverstone: no it still works zorba

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Zorba (code2.hax): not really

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Ciska Riverstone: u just need to be specific about it

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Zorba (code2.hax): I don't

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Zorba (code2.hax): it's not mine ;-)

[2017/10/17 13:39]  Ciska Riverstone: hehe yes of course

[2017/10/17 13:40]  Ciska Riverstone: u can  describe it differently too

[2017/10/17 13:40]  Ciska Riverstone: thats a matter of language

[2017/10/17 13:40]  Zorba (code2.hax): /me nods

[2017/10/17 13:40]  herman Bergson: Zorba...:-)

[2017/10/17 13:40]  herman Bergson: The Self as a Center of Narrative Gravity

 in F. Kessel, P. Cole and D. Johnson, eds, Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.

[2017/10/17 13:40]  herman Bergson: There you find the original article of Dennett

[2017/10/17 13:40]  herman Bergson: Search on that title and you can download it as PDF

[2017/10/17 13:40]  Zorba (code2.hax): In a very abstract sense, I don't disagree, Herman

[2017/10/17 13:41]  herman Bergson: This is an abstract matter

[2017/10/17 13:41]  herman Bergson: The concept is an abstractum as Dennett said referring to Reichenbach

[2017/10/17 13:41]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and saved to computer already

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for later reading

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Zorba (code2.hax): But some of the claims about the nature of gravity that are tossed about in this are simply not truth

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): was not hard to find

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 13:42]  Zorba (code2.hax): gtg. Thanks for the presentation, Herman. Tc all

[2017/10/17 13:42]  herman Bergson: as I said....I never talked about gravity. here...

[2017/10/17 13:42]  herman Bergson: good discussion :-))

[2017/10/17 13:43]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 13:43]  herman Bergson: So...in our hearts we all carry a center of gravity  ^_^

[2017/10/17 13:44]  Ciska Riverstone: hehehe buddha would agree with u fully ,)

[2017/10/17 13:44]  herman Bergson: and when you displace it you get aout of balance :-)

[2017/10/17 13:44]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 13:44]  Ciska Riverstone: (although he might suggest it could be in our toe too ;) )

[2017/10/17 13:44]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[2017/10/17 13:44]  herman Bergson: Taht's a mattter of maths Ciska :-)

[2017/10/17 13:45]  Ciska Riverstone: hahahah

[2017/10/17 13:45]  herman Bergson: Some have it in their head, some in there genitals , some in their toes, I'd say...

[2017/10/17 13:45]  herman Bergson: looking at human behavior

[2017/10/17 13:45]  Ciska Riverstone: i'd like to reckon where mine is ,)

[2017/10/17 13:45]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): some behind their "ellebogen"

[2017/10/17 13:45]  Ciska Riverstone: u have the formular?

[2017/10/17 13:45]  Ciska Riverstone: heheheh beertje

[2017/10/17 13:45]  herman Bergson: good one Beertje :-)

[2017/10/17 13:46]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): grins

[2017/10/17 13:46]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 13:46]  herman Bergson: I think it is ellbow in english

[2017/10/17 13:46]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i didn't know how to spell it

[2017/10/17 13:46]  Ciska Riverstone: ellenbogen its in german - so i'm very happy with ellebogen

[2017/10/17 13:47]  herman Bergson: interesting....did the Brits learn this word from us?

[2017/10/17 13:47]  CB Axel: Probably

[2017/10/17 13:47]  herman Bergson: why would that be...? :-))

[2017/10/17 13:47]  herman Bergson: knee.....Dutch knie

[2017/10/17 13:48]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): kindergarten...

[2017/10/17 13:48]  herman Bergson: ellbow and knee....

[2017/10/17 13:48]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): german

[2017/10/17 13:48]  CB Axel: It's all from whatever the first language was.

[2017/10/17 13:48]  herman Bergson: interesting...these joints are derived from Dutch terms :-)

[2017/10/17 13:48]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm ok

[2017/10/17 13:48]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): question...

[2017/10/17 13:49]  CB Axel: Since we've all had knees and elbows from the beginning of language, the names for them are all related.

[2017/10/17 13:49]  herman Bergson: Allthough not a philosophical question yet quite interesting ^_^

[2017/10/17 13:49]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): when a person gets another heart, sometimes his or hers identity changes

[2017/10/17 13:49]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how is that possible?

[2017/10/17 13:50]  CB Axel: It's probably a psychological thing, Beertje.

[2017/10/17 13:50]  herman Bergson: that is just a psychological issue, I'd say

[2017/10/17 13:50]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): taking over the givers haert and idientity?

[2017/10/17 13:50]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how can one know how that person was?

[2017/10/17 13:51]  herman Bergson: no....just the belief that the heart you got , is related to the identity of the donor

[2017/10/17 13:51]  CB Axel: And you know that person was a kind and generous person.

[2017/10/17 13:51]  herman Bergson: At least...yes

[2017/10/17 13:52]  herman Bergson: But you  never know the color of his or her hair...

[2017/10/17 13:52]  herman Bergson: you not even know if it was a man or a woman

[2017/10/17 13:53]  herman Bergson: But I guess there is some TV documentary in which someone tells he / she is  in contact with the donor :-)

[2017/10/17 13:53]  herman Bergson: we love such stories

[2017/10/17 13:53]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i didn't know about  a tv documentary

[2017/10/17 13:53]  herman Bergson: Implies an afterlife and so on

[2017/10/17 13:54]  herman Bergson: Neither do I Beertje :-))

[2017/10/17 13:54]  herman Bergson: But when you can think of it, it exists somewhere, is my experience :-))

[2017/10/17 13:54]  CB Axel: This Thursday is the anniversary of a surgery where a baby girl got a baboon heart. I doubt that she began to identify as a baboon.

[2017/10/17 13:54]  herman Bergson: Did it work, CB?

[2017/10/17 13:55]  CB Axel: Only for a short time. Days, I believe. She died before a human heart could be found.

[2017/10/17 13:56]  herman Bergson: Always a sad story....but they tried....

[2017/10/17 13:57]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aw

[2017/10/17 13:57]  herman Bergson: Well...this was an interesting discussion again ^_^

[2017/10/17 13:57]  Ciska Riverstone: (just for the backround http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/brain-cells-in-the-heart/

[2017/10/17 13:57]  kirsche64: ist online.

[2017/10/17 13:57]  CB Axel: From wikipedia: Though she died within a month of the procedure, she lived weeks longer than any previous recipient of a non-human heart.

[2017/10/17 13:57]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it was interesting indeed

[2017/10/17 13:57]  herman Bergson: ahh...let's have a look

[2017/10/17 13:58]  herman Bergson: The heart does not contain brain cells. It contains neurons that comprise its own intrinsic system for regulating cardiac function. Further, neurons alone do not equal mind or consciousness. It takes the specialized organization of neurons in the brain to produce cognitive processes that we experience as the mind.

[2017/10/17 13:58]  herman Bergson: Answers your question, I guess Beertje

[2017/10/17 13:58]  Ciska Riverstone: it shows that research is done

[2017/10/17 13:58]  Ciska Riverstone: thats how far it is atm

[2017/10/17 13:59]  herman Bergson: yes..interesting....

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: its difficult to say where it will lead

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: maybe

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: just maybe

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: there is some connection

[2017/10/17 13:59]  herman Bergson: well...to make one remark....

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: but right now that cannot be confirmed

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: the pint is

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: if people experience something

[2017/10/17 13:59]  herman Bergson: when we talk about the Mind, we tend to think of the BRAIN as the source....

[2017/10/17 13:59]  Ciska Riverstone: this could be a biological basis for that

[2017/10/17 14:00]  Loreen Aldrin: ist online.

[2017/10/17 14:00]  herman Bergson: but the brain is just a part of the whole central nervous system...

[2017/10/17 14:00]  Ciska Riverstone: yep

[2017/10/17 14:00]  herman Bergson: so the whole body can be the source of the mind

[2017/10/17 14:00]  Ciska Riverstone: as long as we do not know how things are stored where...

[2017/10/17 14:00]  Ciska Riverstone: we just don'T know ;)

[2017/10/17 14:01]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[2017/10/17 14:01]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can the mind die?

[2017/10/17 14:01]  herman Bergson: what do you mean Ciska...we know that our memories are in our brain...

[2017/10/17 14:01]  herman Bergson: BUT>....

[2017/10/17 14:01]  herman Bergson: there is something else...

[2017/10/17 14:01]  herman Bergson: our  muscles have a memory too...

[2017/10/17 14:02]  herman Bergson: I had my flute repaired....

[2017/10/17 14:02]  Ciska Riverstone: lets put it like that we can savely say up to now that something in the brain stores

[2017/10/17 14:02]  Ciska Riverstone: but we do not know about the rest

[2017/10/17 14:02]  herman Bergson: stared to ply afer almost ten years again....

[2017/10/17 14:02]  Ciska Riverstone: we assume most is done in the brain

[2017/10/17 14:02]  Ciska Riverstone: but braindead people for example have still reactions

[2017/10/17 14:02]  herman Bergson: and I said to the man who did the job...don’t know if I can play again...

[2017/10/17 14:02]  Ciska Riverstone: or can have

[2017/10/17 14:03]  Ciska Riverstone: good for you herman ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:03]  herman Bergson: He said....don't worry...it is like riding a bike....also after ten years you still can do it

[2017/10/17 14:03]  herman Bergson: It may be that my brain controls the movements of my fingers...

[2017/10/17 14:04]  herman Bergson: but the n muscles in my fingers seem to be pretty smart and quick learning again

[2017/10/17 14:04]  Ciska Riverstone: sure - u trott the old autobahns ,)

[2017/10/17 14:04]  herman Bergson: so...maybe the source of the mind is the  whole body

[2017/10/17 14:05]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybe

[2017/10/17 14:05]  herman Bergson: I agree Ciska, but I still can not drive 160 km an hour at the moment :-)

[2017/10/17 14:06]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): on his speed bike:)

[2017/10/17 14:06]  Ciska Riverstone: heheh

[2017/10/17 14:06]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:06]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if you put a jet engine on it you can

[2017/10/17 14:06]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:06]  herman Bergson: It is a flute, bejiita :-))

[2017/10/17 14:07]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): the fastest bike in the Netherlands was 120 km hour

[2017/10/17 14:07]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): are we talking instruments or vehicles?

[2017/10/17 14:07]  CB Axel: /me is trying to imagine a jet powered flute

[2017/10/17 14:07]  herman Bergson: Me too CB :-))

[2017/10/17 14:07]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that would be loud for sure

[2017/10/17 14:07]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): compressed air drive could wor, like an organ

[2017/10/17 14:08]  herman Bergson: Well I suggest you all try it out at home..:-)

[2017/10/17 14:08]  herman Bergson: For today we havedone enough, I'd say

[2017/10/17 14:08]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you said the mind is in the whole body, if one looses a leg wil he loose a part of his mind?

[2017/10/17 14:08]  herman Bergson: So thank you all agin ...

[2017/10/17 14:08]  herman Bergson: Class dismissed..

[2017/10/17 14:08]  Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now im gonna read that pdf, then do some more JS scripts

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then sleep

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice as usual

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Ciska Riverstone: sleep well bejiita ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:09]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Bejiita

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Ciska Riverstone: welterusten beertje ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:09]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and class :-)

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:09]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********

[2017/10/17 14:09]  herman Bergson: OK Bejiita...!

[2017/10/17 14:09]  Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)

[2017/10/17 14:09]  CB Axel: Good night, everyone. See you Thursday. °͜°

[2017/10/17 14:09]  herman Bergson: Bye CB

[2017/10/17 14:10]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Ciska en Herman

[2017/10/17 14:10]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: gute nacht :-) see you Thursday

[2017/10/17 14:10]  Ciska Riverstone: ㋡

[2017/10/17 14:10]  herman Bergson: Bye Beertje :-)

[2017/10/17 14:10]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oops forgot you Bergie

[2017/10/17 14:10]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: #°*** BABA ***°#

[2017/10/17 14:10]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-))

[2017/10/17 14:10]  .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Gute nacht

[2017/10/17 14:11]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: hihi :-)

[2017/10/17 14:11]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: sleep well beertje:-)

[2017/10/17 14:11]  Ciska Riverstone: *** Gute Nacht, Freunde, es wird Zeit für mich zu geh‘n ***

[2017/10/17 14:11]  Ciska Riverstone: ;)

[2017/10/17 14:11]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: turtles?

[2017/10/17 14:12]  herman Bergson: Was ich noch zu sagen hätte dauert nur ein zigarette und ein letztes glas im stehen

[2017/10/17 14:12]  bergfrau Apfelbaum: hehe

[2017/10/17 14:12]  bergfrau Apfelbaum:  ☆*¨¨**''* Cheers *''**¨¨*☆

[2017/10/17 14:12]  herman Bergson: \o/

681: The Self as a category mistake...

According to Kant (1724-1804), we make a mistake when we understand the Self as a possible object of perception. 

      

The kind of think error that is at stake is strikingly described by Gilbert Ryle (1900-1976). 

     

Imagine visiting the Open Day of a university for the first time. You have seen several university buildings, including the new library and the building of the Faculty of Philosophy. 

     

But the university itself you have not yet come across. At the end of the day you still have a pressing question: "Where is the university?"

    

According to Ryle, in such a case you are guilty of what he calls a "category mistake" . You think the university is in the same category as the other things you've seen. 

   

But the university is not a building at all. It is the way the buildings are organized. The university does not exist in the same way as the library and the building of the Faculty of Philosophy. 

   

That's why it's futile to think that if you're looking good enough, you'll still find the university. The university is not the kind of thing you can find as you found the library and faculty building of philosophy.

      

Ryle uses this example to criticize the substance dualism of Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650). 

       

According to Descartes, man consists of two types of substances: a physical and a mental. 

     

The physical substance is expanded , in other words, it takes space and, like all other spatial bodies, is subject to mechanical laws. 

      

The physical body is also part of the public space, and can be observed by others. 

     

The spiritual substance, on the other hand, is not spatial and  not subject to mechanical laws. The content of someone's mind is also private, and can not be perceived by others.

   

Only I have direct knowledge of what is happening in my mind. According to Ryle, the problem is now that, 

    

although Descartes's mental and physical substances are radically different, we tend to ask the same questions about the mind as about the body.

     

That is, the mind is understood as a "something" belonging to the same category as the body. 

    

Cartesians try to understand the mind, like the body, using concepts such as 'thing', 'material', 'property', 'state', 'process', 'change', 'cause' and 'result'. 

   

Spirits are things, but simply things other than bodies. The functioning of the mind can be understood in terms of cause-effect relationships,

     

but these differ essentially from the causal  relationships we use when describing physical behavior. 

   

Ryle argues that Cartesians make the same kind of mistake as you when you were expecting the university to be a building during your visit. 

    

The mind is not spatial, it does not move in the same way as the body, it is not matter, it can not be publicly observed, and so on.

      

Ryle also calls the Cartesian spirit a "ghost in the machine": "As suggested, the spirit is not just a ghost connected to a machine, but it's a ghostly machine itself.“

    

It is remarkable to realise, that this fundamental philosophical mistake, which is Cartesian dualism, is deeply rooted in our culture.

   

Around 1900 it even was reinforced by Sigmund Freud’s “invention” of psycho-analysis. The psyche became a real thing.

    

Also interesting to note is opposition to this by the behaviourists. Psychology should only use observable physical behaviour of the person and not be based on something you can not see.

   

The category mistake is also a still popular. Politicians, for example, love it. They talk about “the people” as if it is a person or object., that wants and feels and so on.

        

Make it your next hobby to detect category mistakes. 

    

Thank you for your attention again… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i recall that discussion of dualism from a few years ago

[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma it is the oldest story in philosophy :-)

[13:22] herman Bergson: and of course even more in theology

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

[13:22] herman Bergson: It also is the biggest philosophical misconception  in history of philosophy in my opinion

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this category thing seems interesting for sure

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes it is Bejiita...

[13:23] herman Bergson: just look around and you see it everywhere ..:-)

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): how to describe tings the right way, normally you never think of things that way

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they just are

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort of

[13:24] herman Bergson: The point is, that you use descriptive terms from one category and apply them to another

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

[13:24] herman Bergson: For instance.....talking about the Will of the People....

[13:24] herman Bergson: Politicions love it....

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i see that

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right now especially

[13:25] herman Bergson: Individuals have a will....

[13:25] herman Bergson: people is a word describing how individuals are organized

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...it happens all the time...

[13:26] herman Bergson: Perfect way to manipulate your audience...

[13:26] herman Bergson: to give them the impression that you are talking about something REAL....something tangible

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how would you speak the right way about the will of the people?

[13:28] herman Bergson: Good question, Beertje...

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): lets say with the issue in spain right now

[13:29] Debbie dB (framdor) is online.

[13:29] herman Bergson: I guess you could say...after an inquiry we noticed that 67% of the persons prefered A

[13:29] herman Bergson: The Spain issue....

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good wAY

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): makes sense

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): since there are two sides as we see

[13:30] herman Bergson: To begin with...completely illegal and disrespecting  the law

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh yes aside from that

[13:30] herman Bergson: Well the referendum was pretty weird....

[13:30] herman Bergson: most people against separation didn’t vote...

[13:31] herman Bergson: so the 90% pro is not representative

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): there actually there was not will of the people yes

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): since there are two sides within the asrea

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): area that wants to separate

[13:32] herman Bergson: The majority does not want a separation

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but i get your point

[13:32] herman Bergson: Here it is dangerous to talk about the will of the people...

[13:32] Piovefiore: I have a somewhat different take... I see sets of politicians manipulating these sorts of concepts for their own means

[13:33] Piovefiore: and ends

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh absolutely

[13:33] herman Bergson: of course Pio

[13:33] Piovefiore: not two sides, but many, not all nationalists are fascists, for example, but the fascists feed on the nationalist sentiments

[13:33] herman Bergson: Main issue in politics is power....

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): going on in the us too

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

[13:34] Piovefiore nods

[13:34] herman Bergson: nationalists and fascists are two different species...:-)

[13:34] Piovefiore: Exactly

[13:35] herman Bergson: Trump is a nationalist but no fascist...

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well sometimes i wonder

[13:35] herman Bergson smiles

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): some things said are close to fascism

[13:35] herman Bergson: I just was thinking...ok a little bit racist perhaps?

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): me too, the entire world is just a big sad mess it seems nowadays

[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:35] Piovefiore: I would put it this way: all fascists are nationalists, but not all nationalists are fascists

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

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

[13:36] CB Axel: I think Trump would like to be a fascist.

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): working on it

[13:36] herman Bergson: I guess that is correct Piovefiore :-)

[13:36] Piovefiore: I have a question, if I may change the track of the discussion somewhat

[13:36] herman Bergson: sure

[13:37] Piovefiore: What would you say is the difference between self and identity?

[13:37] Piovefiore: Is there a difference in categories here as well?

[13:37] herman Bergson: I'd say...there isn't

[[13:38] herman Bergson: Often The Self and Personal Identity are used interchangabely

[13:38] herman Bergson: Both concepts focus on the question.....In what sense does a person stay the same throughout time

[13:38] Piovefiore: When I think of identity I find it easier to understand how it is not a materially conceivable "thing"...

[13:39] Piovefiore: but rather a process informed by culture, historical era and many other issues

[13:39] herman Bergson: I think it is just a matter if taste here...

[13:39] herman Bergson: I see...

[13:40] herman Bergson: You could say perhaps that the word Identity YET refers to something independent of a person....

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ohoh

[13:40] herman Bergson: The Dutch Identity for instance....what is our Identity...

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): water and ice

[13:41] herman Bergson: But here again is that danger of the category mistake...

[13:41] Piovefiore smiles "yes, that was my guess"

[13:41] herman Bergson: No Gemma....:-)))

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I'm Sorry! lol

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I sorry..

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): could not help it

[13:41] herman Bergson: Tulips, windmills, cheese and wooden shoes ^_^

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh yes

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): and liquorice :)

[13:42] Piovefiore: the danger of stereotyping

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well in the days of climate change first thoughts

[13:42] herman Bergson: Ahh yes Beertje.....and hagelslag :-))

[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): lekker:))

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yum

[13:42] Piovefiore: <--- licorice="" loves="" p="">

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): give meee!

[13:43] herman Bergson: so....The Self and Personal Identity...I'd say they mean the same.....

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: In a categorisation I would say self is a subcathergorie of identity

[13:43] herman Bergson: there you go Ciska....

[13:44] herman Bergson: you make Identity kind of transcendental in relation to a self which you associate with a physical person

[13:44] herman Bergson: as if identity can be something more that the self

[13:45] herman Bergson: ontologically

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

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: self is a concept as well

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: so its categhorizing concepts somehow - no?

[13:45] herman Bergson: it is.....

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self = your own identity

[13:46] herman Bergson: true Bejiita

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least that is a part of t

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: no - I would say that both exist apart from each other

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: identity can hold the abstract characteristics

[13:46] herman Bergson: Where does that Identity exist Ciska?

[13:46] Piovefiore: In our perception, in our experience?

[13:46] Piovefiore: We experience it

[13:47] Piovefiore: rather than perceive it?

[13:47] herman Bergson: perception and experiences can be called our Self

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: mh - basically in communication as a concept

[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Ciska....so actually it sounds  like a kind of metaphysics

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: I would say the concept of self is experienceable

[13:48] Piovefiore: What I'm suggesting is that it's a phenomenological issue

[13:48] herman Bergson: That is what Hume denied....:-))

[13:48] herman Bergson: You can experience a lot, but you wont find a Self in these experiences

[13:49] Piovefiore: We don't have identity as much as an identity-sense... it this makes any sense lol

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i am afraid it does

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): make sense

[13:49] herman Bergson: He realized that he could observe his experiences.....and in that sense he referred to it as being in a theater

[13:50] herman Bergson: It does Piovefiore...

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:50] herman Bergson: The self is a kind of organizing primciple in our experiences...

[13:50] herman Bergson: Like Kant said...(see previous lecture ^_^)

[13:51] Piovefiore: I like that... an organizing principle, yes

[13:51] herman Bergson: (have to publish it yet in the blog...:-)

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: yes i looked for it

[13:51] Piovefiore: So identity-sense is not quite the same as self-awareness?

[13:52] herman Bergson: No....

[13:52] herman Bergson: I'd say self awareness is another word for consciousness

[13:52] Piovefiore: Self awareness being an awareness of that organizing principle that shapes our experience of self

[13:52] Piovefiore: or of our identity

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

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: (for me thats still two different things herman , ;))

[13:53] herman Bergson: in that way we become many layers

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh yes

[13:54] herman Bergson: keep it up  Ciska...^_^

[13:54] herman Bergson: partly the problem is in the language....

[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: exactly thats the difference ;)

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is what i have been thing here

[13:54] herman Bergson: Like bejiita refered to recursion several times...

[13:55] herman Bergson: I think about myself who thinks about me...:-)

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

[13:55] herman Bergson: Like the plumber said today here....

[13:56] herman Bergson: Will be back tomorrow....me and myself....

[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: (omg he forgot his I)

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and I

[13:56] herman Bergson: so I answered....guess you two will fix it :-)

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): nono

[13:56] herman Bergson: lol...that would make three ...

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no way

[13:56] Piovefiore: Hahaha

[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): me myself and I sit here

[13:56] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you have to pay 3 men tomorrow :)

[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: (freud would not be pleased with that guy)

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): in one spot

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:57] Piovefiore: I am the perceiving and the perceived

[13:57] herman Bergson: OMG....you're right Beertje :-))

[13:57] Piovefiore: the seeing and the seen

[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): omg

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): OMG!!!

[13:57] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): grins:)

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): Hope i make it Tuesday

[13:57] herman Bergson: Well...I guess we can say a few things now....

[13:58] herman Bergson: The Self and Personal Idenity are concepts meaning the same...

[13:58] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Seems logical

[13:58] herman Bergson: Ciska disagrees :-)

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: (please)

[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh i agree

[13:58] herman Bergson: Feel free to do so Ciska :-)

[13:59] Piovefiore: I am not completely sure either, but it is an interesting point

[13:59] herman Bergson: Maybe later this issue will be clarified....interesting ....

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i cant see wo it is not

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): how

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hmm

[13:59] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): will wait

[13:59] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): interesting

[14:00] herman Bergson: Guess we have to think about this some more....

[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[14:00] Sandia Beaumont is online.

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman thank you all

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again

[14:00] herman Bergson: So..I guess time to relax :-)

[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[14:00] Piovefiore: :-)

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu Tuesday i guess

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

[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed

[14:00] CB Axel: See you all on Tuesday. °͜°

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): bye for now

[14:00] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman

[14:00] Piovefiore: Tuesday at the same time?

[14:00] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: take care

[14:00] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yep

[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye all

[14:01] Piovefiore: Thank you! This was most interesting and stimulating.

[14:01] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes Pio

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: welterusten beertje & Herman

[14:01] herman Bergson: My pleasure Piovefiore

[14:01] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Ciska

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: take care piovefiore

[14:01] Piovefiore: You too, very nice to meet you all

680: Kant himself versus Hume

An important difference between Hume (1711-1776) and the brain reductionists I mentioned in my previous lecture, is that they look for different things in different places. 

       

Hume is searching for  the Self in sensory experience, the brain reductionists seek the Self in the brain. 

      

But there is also an important agreement: both of them think we must be able to demonstrate the existence of the Self based on the perception. 

      

For Hume this perception is a form of inner perception, also known as 'introspection’. 

    

For brain reductionists, it involves the perception of brain activity, for example by brain scans. 

   

But how convincing is the assumption that the Self can be perceived?  

   

A criticism of this idea is found in the work of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant responds to Hume's conclusions. 

      

He completely agrees with his statement that we do not encounter the Self in sensory experience, but this does not mean that it does not exist. 

      

According to Kant, Hume doesn’t find the Self because he is  looking in the wrong place. The self is not the kind of thing you can find in perception like a chair or a table. 

     

Imagine: You are in a meadow and you see a white horse standing there. According to Hume, a number of experiences are taking place at a rapid pace: 

    

the experience of something that is white, has a horse shape, makes a horselike sound, and so on.

    

Hume is right that you will not find your Self in the horse experience; You only have the experience of a white horse. 

      

But Kant asks the following question: What makes it actually possible that you experience this white horse as such? 

    

His suggestion is that there must be "something" that brings together these loose experiences as it were and giving it a meaning. 

     

After all, you have the experience of a white horse, not a white thing + horse shape + horse sound, and so forth. 

     

Indeed, we would not have any idea of ​​the concept of horse (or "table", "human", etc.) if the different experiences would not be united in one way or another. 

     

According to Kant, there must be something, a sort of anchor point, which forges these Ioose  perceptions into a unity of shape, color, size, place, time, etcetera

     

and which causes us to not see a collection of loose horse parts (four legs , two ears, a head, body  and a tail) that are white in color. 

   

According to Kant, this 'something' is the Self. Kant calls this a transcendental Self 

   

because it is not something that can be found in sensory experience, but is something that allows those experiences. 

     

The Self makes us see the horse as a whole, even if it is partially hidden behind a tree. We also see this horse as a whole over time. 

   

When it starts to run, we experience it as an object that moves, rather than as countless objects in different places. 

   

The Self makes us see the 'total picture'. The Self is thus not an object of the experience, but its precondition to experience. 

    

In other words, without the existence of a Self, we could not have any experience at all. 

      

Although Kant's argument is addressed Hume, it also applies to contemporary brain reductionists.

     

We do not actually find ourselves in the brain, and we can not prove its existence on the basis of a brain scan. 

   

But that does not mean that it does not exist. There must be "something" that enables us to interpret brain activity in a meaningful way, 

   

which means that we can assign a certain meaning to a brain scan. That 'something' is the Self.

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

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

[13:19] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...the floor is yours :-)

[13:19] CB Axel: So where does he think that "something" that is the Self is?

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like in self = the whole of it?

[13:19] herman Bergson: in th emind, CB

[13:20] herman Bergson: That is why Kant called it transcendental...it is not a physics phenomenon

[13:20] CB Axel: I thought his Self was what interpreted brain activity, not the brain itself.

[13:21] herman Bergson: Kant's Self is the organizer of our sensory perceptions...make them meaningful..

[13:21] roos Gartner is offline.

[13:22] CB Axel: OK

[13:22] herman Bergson: an old fashoined movie is a strip of tranparent material containign a series of images...

[13:23] herman Bergson: when played at speed it looks like moving objects...

[13:23] Zorba (code2.hax): persistence of vision

[13:23] Mikki Louise (mikkilouise) is online.

[13:23] Zorba (code2.hax): done by the brain

[13:23] herman Bergson: But that is not how the brain works accoring to Kant...

[13:23] herman Bergson: we see objects ..for instance people walking by

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax): [13:21] herman Bergson: Kant's Self is the organizer of our sensory perceptions...make them meaningful. <= can include persistence of vision, no?

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes...Zorba..the brain organnizes sensory input....

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Kant never saw a movie I guess

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax): I guess I don't see how this contradicts Kant

[13:24] herman Bergson: and this organizer is called teh Self by Kant

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:24] herman Bergson: this faculty of the  brain....

[13:25] herman Bergson: like it organizes our memories of our past...make us a person throughout time

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): simply put, there is a limit how fast the brain can process things and if you update fast enough it can not differ a sequence of images from continous motion

[13:25] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:25] Now playing: Andreas Staier - BACH - Partita No.5 in G,BWV829

[13:26] Kimmy Jannings (kim1987.wirefly) is offline.

[13:26] herman Bergson: So...if we have learnt something sofar...we now know that it makes no sense to lookfor the  Self as some ontological entity...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yet it is a meaningful part of ourselves...

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

[13:27] herman Bergson: It means...we can look at ourselves

[13:27] Dien (djdien.bailey) is offline.

[13:27] herman Bergson: Like there is me and my shadow there is me and myself...

[13:28] Zorba (code2.hax): well different conditions will affect the number of consciousness events a person will have during a period of time, like for example when there's certain drama it's believe that the 'frame-rate' or consciousness events (as called by some) are increased casing a person to believe  that time slows down, like in a car accident.

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it is recursion, when I refers to I i refer to myself

[13:28] herman Bergson: I watch myself and take care of mysef  everyday...

[13:28] Zorba (code2.hax): trama*

[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes bejiita...it looks like some recursive rpocess..

[13:30] CB Axel: Cogito ergo sum

[13:30] Oceane (oceane.madrigal) is offline.

[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Zorba.... a car accident you hardly remember...

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

[13:30] CB Axel: There is no self, only my thoughts.

[13:30] Ladyy Haven (ladyy.haven) is offline.

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): there is no self, only self reference

[13:31] herman Bergson: Interesting issue here CB....

[13:31] herman Bergson: You say ...MY thoughts....

[13:31] herman Bergson: so there are thoughts and someone who calls them MINE :_)))

[13:31] herman Bergson: so...there is a Self :-))

[13:32] herman Bergson: the owner of the thoughts :-))

[13:32] CB Axel: I guess we could all be just random thoughts out in the ether. °͜°

[13:32] Zorba (code2.hax): doubtful, CB

[13:32] herman Bergson: You are not my thought, CB...you are CB :-))

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i understand this recursion thing well because i use it in programming a lot, for ex i = I+1 is recursive because i use the same variable on both sides thus self refering to it and then adding to it

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I = I+1

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): very simple example

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the same way that you can refer to yourself

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the whole of you

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it must be like that

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and that is self

[13:34] herman Bergson: Well...guess Kant made his point here today :-))

[13:34] herman Bergson: SO...if you ha ven't any questions or remarks....?

[13:35] herman Bergson: Thank you all again....^_^

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:35] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again ㋡

[13:35] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

[13:35] herman Bergson: in other words..

[13:35] herman Bergson: PARTY TIME !!!! ^_^

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hee

[13:35] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Thank you Herman & Class :-)

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe