Wednesday, November 8, 2017

686: Wittgenstein on introspection...

An important criticism of introspectionism we encounter in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). 
  
When Harry strikes his thumb and says "I'm in pain," he does so, according to introspection theory, 
  
based on a certain mental state (a sense of pain) he has seen with his inner eye. 
  
However, Wittgenstein argues that we are making a fundamental mistake when we think this is the way we gain self-knowledge. 
  
The introspective theory leaves room for a radical form of skepticism. For example, how does Harry know that he means the same thing with "pain" like someone else? 
  
As his friend Barry strikes his thumb with the same hammer and also says "I'm in pain," Harry and Barry seems likely 
  
to mean the same thing with their pronunciation: they have seen a similar kind of internal condition. 
  
But how can we actually know if their verdict is based on introspection? Since Harry and Barry can only have knowledge of their own mental state, 
  
and not of the others, they can never be sure if the other feels pain or something else, “minx” for example. 
  
This is not just a problem for Harry's knowledge of Barry, but also for the knowledge Harry has of himself. 
   
After all, how does Harry know that the pain he felt after he hit the thumb with his hammer is of the same kind as the pain he felt when he stumbled across a tree stump?
  
According to the introspection theory, just as you can see, for example, a cup of porcelain or plastic, you can 'see' an experience of pain or itchiness. 
   
The meaning of the word 'pain' is thus derived from introspection. When Harry says, "I'm in pain," he means, "I have experience X." 
  
But when he stumbles over a tree stump, Harry does not have experience X, but experience Y. So how does Harry know that in both cases it is an experience of pain? 
  
With these types of skeptical questions, Wittgenstein wants to show in the first place something is wrong with the introspective theory and the idea of ​​an 'internal world' that we can perceive. 
   
You can not experience each others experiences, only your own. If we accept the introspective theory, it's impossible to know what pain means,
     
because everybody may have just another experience. Because of this private character of experiences, we will never know 
   
if Harry and Barry, when they both use the word 'pain', actually mean the same. And that also eliminates the ability to understand what it means to others to have pain. 
  
The introspection theory ultimately leads to a state of solipsism (solo =  'alone' and ipse = ‘self'), in which there is no such thing as a shared language or meaning. 
  
The knowledge we have of ourselves may seem to be a private matter, but that is not the case says Wittgenstein. 
   
Concepts like 'pain' but also 'hunger', 'fear' and 'happiness' derive their meaning from a social world, that is, from a common context in which these words are used. 
   
Language is, according to Wittgenstein, embedded in usage rules, and you must be able to follow and apply them.  
   
When we say we have pain or hunger, or want to go to the cinema, in those cases we play a particular game - a language game - that is bound to certain rules, as Wittgenstein calls it.

According to the rule you hit your thumb with a hammer and then show certain behaviour including uttering a word: pain.
     
This is because everybody does so in our language. Thus gets the word “pain” its meaning.
   
It is not so that you hit your thumb and then through introspection you ‘see’ the word pain.  

Significance and thus self-knowledge can not be achieved simply by linking a word to an experience. We must first know how that word is used in a social context. 
  
Proponents of introspection theory assume the idea that we should first of all have knowledge of our own mental states and, on the basis of that, acquire knowledge of others. 
   
Meaning goes from inside to outside. Wittgenstein turns this around: first of all, we need to know 
  
how to use the concepts in a social context before we can apply them to ourselves to gain self-knowledge. Meaning goes from the outside to the inside.
    
Thank you for your attention again … ^_^


The Discussion

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we can tell the experience is the same for everyone by the reaction (jumping around yelling and swearing after hittng the thumb with the hammer)
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (aims haper at hermans head to give hom experience x and see if that is the same as well)
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hammer
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): experience z it would be
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): depends on the impact of the hammer on the head or thumb
[13:28] herman Bergson: The main idea here is how we look at language....
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in all cases it hurts
[13:28] CB Axel: I tend to agree with Wittgenstein, but the language had to have started internally with someone who was the first to use a particular word like pain.
[13:28] herman Bergson: and how words get a meaning...
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes CB but that is a theoretical approach just like mankind had to start with at least one couple...
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all grts togethre
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): DAMN CANt tyPE At ALL TODAY, ! too much rumbling around befor i guess
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im tired
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): played floorball again
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but its fn
[13:30] herman Bergson: Logically you could come to such a conclusion but in reality...?
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you callit tired Bejiita, but what is tired for you?
[13:30] CB Axel: LOL
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): wanting to sleep
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats tired for me
[13:30] herman Bergson: We only understand bejiita when we use the same language game rules :-)
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess you all want to sleep as well when tired
[13:31] herman Bergson: rule 1....I want to sleep :-)
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just as me
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the reaction is same
[13:31] CB Axel: Tim Minchin wrote a song for the musical Matilda that starts out with this idea of what one person experiences may not be what another experiences.
[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): afraid of me John? i don't bite :)
[13:31] herman Bergson: means I can use the word "tired"
[13:31] CB Axel: So I've thought about this before.
[13:31] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): no no
[13:31] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I crashed sorry
[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not now I mean..
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like hitting herman in the head with a hammer would be as much pain as him stumbling over a root only in different places
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in both cases its pain
[13:32] CB Axel: I've thought about how, if I could somehow get put into someone else's brain, would things look the same to me.
[13:33] encidious Opus: wow , 4 h's Hitting Herman in the Head with a Hammer
[13:33] CB Axel whispers: That's a lot of alliteration. LOL
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): loool, that was NOT intentional!
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:33] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I think that in those years they didn't know the human brain as we do now
[13:33] encidious Opus: see you're not tired
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I am tired but clinging on
[13:34] herman Bergson: Teh main subjec there is the question...do we have a slef and how can we know it...
[13:34] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): a what?
[13:34] CB Axel: self
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): think Herman is tired too
[13:34] herman Bergson: The introspectionists link language directly to experiences....
[13:34] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): ok
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like me
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:35] herman Bergson: Wittgenstein shows us that this leads to sollipsism ultimately....
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self is a seemingly obvious yet complex thing
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as i get it
[13:35] herman Bergson: for the owrds I use for my inner experiences  have no meaning for others...
[13:35] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): to some extent, no
[13:36] herman Bergson: Wittgenstein points at the social context in which language functions
[13:36] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe the language we use is too limited
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): modern medicine confirms that the perception of pain is not the same in everybody
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): and it varies between the sexes
[13:36] herman Bergson: meaning originates form the rules people use to use words
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): so, you have some scientific evidence for it
[13:37] herman Bergson: pain is a difficult phenomenon...
[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes there is a difference between mans flue and womans flue
[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): mans flue seems worse:)
[13:38] CB Axel: hehehe
[13:38] herman Bergson: well at least there is some level at which every human being will say: I am in pain....
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hitting the little toe in all cases also make you jump around screaming and swearing = same experience or?
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): isn’t it?
[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no. it's your experience
[13:39] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): The self or selfish part is what motivates us the most. The ego
[13:39] CB Axel: Same reaction to that experience, but if you were able to put yourself into someone else's brain and then hit your/his thumb with a hammer, would if feel the same as it would have if you were still in your own self?
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all i know react that way to that event
[13:39] herman Bergson: General conclusion is that the word pain does not derive its meaning form introspective observing pain
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting indeed, is it same for all or not
[13:40] herman Bergson: but according to Wittgenstein, from the social context a word is used in
[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): SCience says no, CB
[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): science says that we have a difference in pain threshold
[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes...
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_pain
[13:41] herman Bergson: women seem to have higher tresholds than men :-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: the whimpeys :-)
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Some part of the question has been replied by science since Wittgenstein
[13:42] herman Bergson: To know yourself and express it in language means that you use words which are not private, but derived from a social context
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): He would probably formulate the question differently
[13:42] CB Axel: strike
[13:42] CB Axel: I'm not talking threshold. I'm talking about the actual feeling. Perhaps, if I were to enter your brain that hammer my feel like what I, in my own body and self, would feel like a tickle. But in that other body/self, it would be just as uncomfortable.
[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): so would dozens of others if they know what we know now
[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): now we know that the personality can be changed with few grams of a given chemical
[13:43] CB Axel: strike
[13:43] CB Axel: But to both of us that hammer would still make us pull our hand away and scream and, in my case at least, swear up a storm.
[13:43] herman Bergson: what chemical John?
[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): WE know that Depression can be cured by drugs. and without depression half of World's literature and art wouldn't exist
[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): art and literature, as well as philosophy are the product of sheer pain
[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): mental pain
[13:45] herman Bergson: That sounds too poetic John :-)
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:45] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): we can expect a decline in creativity in future generation due to the advancement of Psychiatry
[13:45] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): generations
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I create literature and art without being depressed (my game/interactine story making projects)
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but also my projects are a bit special
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:46] CB Axel: Joy can be a creative force as well as saddness. °͜°
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and i still cant type SIGH
[13:46] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): you're not famous, lol
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:46] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I said half, not the whole
[13:46] CB Axel: That's not poor typing, Bejiita. It's creativity.
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nope and also its not the purpose of it
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i just want to create stuff from my fantasy and reams
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dreams
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cool stuff
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how do you know Bejiita is not famous?
[13:47] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Wittgenstein himself was in a huge pain
[13:47] CB Axel: Creativity born of excitation and exhaustion. LOL
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you don't know him
[13:47] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Ok, I take it back, he's famous
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well, I guess...enough said about this issue....
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im not a star yet but i have at least been nominated to Swedish Talent for my dance abilities once, did not make it all the way though as there were so many seeking this year
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i was really close and will try again
[13:48] herman Bergson: BEfore we get lost in the  metaphysics of pain,
[13:48] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): anyway, the greatest feats of art, science, literature and ultimately Phylosophy generate from a state of pain, anguish, fear, rage or anguish
[13:48] herman Bergson: I'd like to thank you for your active participation again :-)
[13:49] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): the greatest advancement in science and technology happen during or because of wars
[13:49] herman Bergson: So thank you all....class dismiised ^_^
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now lets hit ourselves in the head with a hammer and go to sleep
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:49] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): great again Herman
[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Bejiita
[13:49] herman Bergson: If you like to continue the discussion plz feel free to do so :-)
[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman
[13:49] CB Axel: And I still say that there has been great art that was spawned by joy.
[13:49] CB Axel: So there.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: welterusten beertje

Friday, October 27, 2017

685: Is Introspection the Method...?

An influential answer to the question of what makes self-knowledge so special is found in the philosophical tradition that originates from the work of Rene Descartes (1596-1650). 
   
According to this tradition, we must see self-knowledge as a way of introspection, a kind of 'inner' perception. 
   
Just as there are things in the world that we can see by looking outside, there are things in our consciousness that we can see when we look inside.
    
Literally translated, this is exactly what introspection means: the Latin word ‘intra ‘means 'inward', and ‘spectare’ means ‘to watch / look’. 
   
The first question that arises here is of course this meaning: do we really LOOK INWARD? It is absurd to assume that we have eyes inside our skull.
   
And if we had, we wouldn’t see a thing because it must be dark inside, I guess. But I also can elaborate on this metaphor
       
You can imagine introspection as a flashlight shedding light in a dark treasure room, your consciousness, on all sorts of shiny objects, such as your convictions, desires, feelings and intentions. 
      
This approach of self-knowledge is also known as the introspection theory. 
    
In Cartesian tradition, self-knowledge is often associated with the following two characteristics: infallibility and omniscience. 
    
Infallibility means that you can not be mistaken when it comes to what mental state you have now.
     
If you think you are in pain, or you're in love, then that's actually the case. However, other people have no infallible knowledge of your thoughts.
     
If they think you are in pain, they may be wrong. Maybe you just try to fool them. 
    
Omniscience means that you have knowledge of all your mental states. It is impossible to not be aware of your thoughts, desires, intentions or beliefs. There is nothing that can escape your inner eye. 
   
These two features make sure that a significant difference arises between self-knowledge and the knowledge we have about the mental world of others. 
   
Today, most philosophers agree that infallibility and omniscience are too high a standard, when it comes to self-knowledge. 
   
Nevertheless this belief, that using  your inner eye, this method of introspection, is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge has been very influential.
    
Of course there is a main role for Descartes here in the history of philosophy, but there still exists also neo-cartesianism.
   
Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938) was a German  philosopher who established the school of phenomenology.
   
“Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology”  is a book (1931) by him, based on four lectures he gave at the Sorbonne, in the Amphithéatre Descartes on February 23 and 25, 1929. Typical….!
    
His whole philosophy was based on this looking inward at mental phenomena to  examine the essence of a mental object, be it a simple mental act, 
  
or the unity of consciousness itself, with the intention of drawing out the absolutely necessary and invariable components that make the mental object what it is.
   
And don’t forget his contemporary Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939), Nowadays his name is sometimes spelled as Sigmund Fraud.
   
His whole theory of psycho-analysis is based on introspection. And he discovered all kinds of interesting things with his “flashlight shedding light in a dark treasure room”.
   
I do not deny the existence of introspection, but the “inner eye” metaphor is misleading. It suggests that we can see “things” in our mind and that we can see everything.
   
However, introspection is not a reliable method to acquire reliable knowledge about the self. 
   
The best description of what introspection really is, would be for me: it is thinking about your thoughts, feelings, emotions, intentions, that is: thinking about what goes on in your mind.
    
And by doing so you won’t find anything that looks like a Self, but yet you can learn a lot about yourself.
    
Thank you again for your attention…. ^_^

Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995
 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

[13:17] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): thinks of see as a metaphor
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): for introspection
[13:18] herman Bergson: Yes....
[13:18] herman Bergson: It puts you on the wrong track, I'd say
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we can access whats in our brain basically like a computer can access its disk drives but unlike the computer there is no way for other people to plug into and "download" what is in your head
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thus mind reading is an impossibility
[13:19] herman Bergson: lovely SF theme....mind reading :-)
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): only you can know what you think and feel, the only way for others to know is if you tell them but sometimes, like when you lie this is incorrect information
[13:20] herman Bergson: Would be a disaster for first-person authority :-)
[13:21] herman Bergson: The main issue to me is this THINKING about what goes on in your mind
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:21] herman Bergson: Some like to call this thinking 'introspection'
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:21] herman Bergson: But I prefer to call it interpretation...
[13:22] herman Bergson: you can not look into your mind.....
[13:22] herman Bergson: that is a metaphor...
[13:22] CB Axel: Right. You can't actually look with your eyes into your own head.
[13:23] CB Axel: Even if you could, all you'd see is brain matter, blood vessels, etc.
[13:23] CB Axel: It wouldn't tell you much.
[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or a black cat
[13:23] herman Bergson: no....but we use expressions like that.....look inward and search...
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:24] CB Axel: You might discover you have a brain tumor or have had a stroke, but it wouldn't tell you what you're thinking or feeling.
[13:24] herman Bergson: so the interesting thing here is to understand thie THINKING as an act....
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sure is
[13:24] herman Bergson: and brings it knowledge of the Self
[13:24] CB Axel: So, introspection isn't really a good word, I guess.
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): especially when trying to meditate!!!
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:24] herman Bergson: I would drop it indeed CB :-))
[13:25] CB Axel: When I try to think about what I'm thinking, I just start going in mental circles.
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): what will we use then
[13:25] herman Bergson: to suggest a relation with "seeing" points you in the wrong direction
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true cb
[13:26] herman Bergson: You can but you don't do that every time CB....
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): most of our thoughts seem to be about what is around us.... people... things... etc that affect us
[13:26] herman Bergson: When you think about your actions....oh my, what am I doing....for instance
[13:26] herman Bergson: or your emotions....
[13:26] herman Bergson: ....am I really in love?
[13:27] herman Bergson: dozens of times a day you think about  what goes on in your mind
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:27] herman Bergson: I understand your circles idea CB....
[13:28] herman Bergson: It is exactly what we are dealing with here.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: When you say ...I am thinking about myself, which means everything that now goes on in you...
[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we can say 'hush'to that moneky in our head , but it won't keep still
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes beertje
[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): monkey
[13:29] herman Bergson: the interesting question is....WHO or WHAT is that "I" and how do I have to understand this act of thinking....
[13:29] herman Bergson: Here too Beertje...who is this "hush" sayer?
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i call the hush sayer 'me'
[13:30] herman Bergson: so in a way we can double ourselves.....
[13:30] CB Axel: Then who is the monkey?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Ask Beertje CB :-)
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): the monkey is the thoughts that keep coming
[13:30] CB Axel: I have to admit that the annoying monkey in my head is also me.
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:31] CB Axel: The Mr. Hyde to my Dr. Jekyl. °͜°
[13:31] herman Bergson: Where is the Self of these two? :-)
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): kohoh cb dualism
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting idea
[13:32] CB Axel: Freud would have said it's both the id and the superego.
[13:32] CB Axel: Or is the ego the self?
[13:32] herman Bergson: so there is Me and the one who I am thinking about (which happens to be me too:-)
[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think there are no two, just one..the self or the me
[13:33] herman Bergson: the EGO is just a term from psycho analytical theory
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is one brain and one mind indeed.....
[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not alowwed in this class :))
[13:34] CB Axel: Yeah. I pretty much gave up on Freud because he thought everything was about sex.
[13:34] herman Bergson: but that mind plays the trick that it can look at itself...
[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): for Freud it was reality
[13:35] herman Bergson: yes ..today is everything about sex indeed  but not in the sense Freud meant ^_^
[13:35] CB Axel: Since we don't even understand how thought works, what consciousness is, how can we explain being able to think about our thoughts?
[13:35] herman Bergson: That is the question indeed CB
[13:36] herman Bergson: But we do....so we want to understand
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we know but we still dont know
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort of
[13:36] herman Bergson: That's what philosophers do ^_^
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we know
[13:37] herman Bergson: At least we can say that this staring inward is no use...there is nothing to see ^_^
[13:37] herman Bergson: Better to stare at your bellybutton ^_^
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) whispers:
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:38] CB Axel: °͜°
[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is that usefull Herman?
[13:38] herman Bergson: So in fact it boils down to the question.....
[13:39] herman Bergson: What kind of act or process is this thinking about your personal thoughts, feelings and so on
[13:39] herman Bergson: Some might conclude....
[13:40] herman Bergson: if it is thinking...then there is nothing special about my pricvate thinking and the thinking of others...
[13:40] herman Bergson: so...maybe there is kn knowledge of our Self at all...
[13:41] herman Bergson: But we'll discuss that in the next lectures :-)
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): oki
[13:41] herman Bergson: Now I'll offer you a whole week to think about yourself....for no classes next week...I  need a vacation ^_^
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): nice
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so do we
[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): op naar Schier:)
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very nice
[13:42] CB Axel: I'll spend the week thinking about thinking about what I'm thinking.
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...saves me one week of chaos due to wintertime shift
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very very true
[13:42] herman Bergson: I'll think about that too CB :-)
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): tho in fall it is only half bad
[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): a lot of thinking about again
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): spring is worse!!!!
[13:43] herman Bergson: Europe is palnning to abolish winter/summertime changes
[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe this will be the last change of time, they want to quit it
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least i can sleep for 1 hour LONGER this time and not the other way around
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh nice
[13:44] CB Axel: I wish the US would. It's so stupid.
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we talk about it every year then go and do it
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): doesnt matter much though since im always a zombie when i awake most of the time no matter how long i sleep
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least im no morning guy
[13:44] herman Bergson: It is proven that it has a lot  of serious negative health consequences...this time shifting
[13:44] CB Axel: Twice a year I have to think hard about what time it is in Europe.
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i love the mornings, the best time of the day
[13:44] CB Axel: And I never know what time it is in Arizona.
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they dont change
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): have a good time
[13:45] CB Axel: The only time I see sunrise is if I've been awake all night. °͜°
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope the weather is good and not too windy
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed this change back and forth is kind of crazy
[13:45] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's 22.45 h now CB
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..then I wish you all a nice week off
[13:45] herman Bergson: Thank you all again
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): have a good time there now Herman
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: have a nice week off herman
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: thank you
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:45] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^
[13:46] CB Axel: Have a nice holiday. °͜°
[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye all for now
[13:46] herman Bergson: Schiermonnikoog is waiting :-)
[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone
[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: enjoy
[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye cb:-))
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):


Wednesday, October 25, 2017

684: How can we know our Self...?

If you see someone gesturing on the street with his hand, you might think he's waving to you. But you do not know for sure.
  
Perhaps he tries to hit an irritating fly, or to call a taxi. At the same time, you probably assume that this person himself 
  
knows what's in his mind at the moment, whether he's waving at you, hiting a fly, or trying to hold a taxi. 
  
Thus, there seems to be a significant difference between the knowledge we have of others and the knowledge we have of ourselves. 
  
While we are often just guessing what goes on in the mind of others, we usually have the intuition that we know ourselves very well. 
   
When you say to the bartender that you're very thirsty, you'd look surprised if he would ask 'Are you sure you're thirsty?' 
  
or 'Are you sure you're thirsty and not hungry?' because you yourself will know this best, don’t you? When it comes to our inner life, we ourselves are the experts of experience. 
  
If we make a statement about what we think or feel, then this statement is generally not questioned. 
  
In philosophy, this is also called 'first-person authority'. But what exactly is the difference between self-knowledge and knowledge of others? 
   
And is it actually true that we know ourselves best?
   
In the previous lectures we discussed a number of ideas that address the ontological question of what the Self actually IS.
      
Ontology is the philosophical theory of what is, what exists. Is it  a thing? Is it an abstract concept. Is it a function of the brain to organise our perception and experiences?

Now, however, I’ll discuss some philosophers who are not primarily interested in the ontological question of the Self. 
   
For them their primary focus is on the question of HOW we actually know our thoughts, convictions, desires, intentions and emotions. 
   
This is an epistemological question. Epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, the question “What can I know (for certain)?.
    
In the next lectures I will discuss some answers to this epistemological question. First we ‘ll have a look at the Cartesian idea that self-knowledge is gained through the ability to introspect. 
   
Proponents of introspection say that this ability is the basis of the difference between self-knowledge and our knowledge of others, 
   
and also explains why we ourselves are experts when it comes to our inner lives. 
  
Then we’ll discuss two critical reactions to this idea: a philosophical criticism based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's work, and a scientific critique based on research in contemporary psychology. 
  
Then we’ll look at the theory of Gilbert Ryle, who states that self-knowledge is gained through our ability to interpret. 
  
According to Ryle, there is no significant difference between self-knowledge and the knowledge we have of others, and we should not assume that we know ourselves best. 
   
A next stop will be the theory of Richard Moran, who claims that self-knowledge is a matter of rational deliberation, actively determining what you think of something. 
   
Richard Moran is a Harvard professor who wrote the book “Authority and Estrangement -  An Essay on Self-Knowledge” (2002)

Thereafter I’ll show how so-called "unconscious prejudices" can influence our thinking, and what consequences this has for our understanding of self-knowledge. 
   
Finally, we’ll focus on Victoria McGeers idea of self-regulation, or the ability to match our behavior to what we think and vice versa.
    
Victoria McGeer is a research scholar and lecturer at Princeton University. She took her B.A. in Philosophy and Government at Dartmouth College
   
and her Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Toronto. She specializes in the philosophy of language and more prominently in the philosophy of mind.
    
As you see, we got a lot of work ahead. Get ready ! Thank you for your attention again…..


The Discussion 

[13:20] herman Bergson smiles
[13:20] herman Bergson: Oh....and  one special message....
[13:21] herman Bergson: Next week NO class...I'll enjoy a nicce vacation then :-))
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): oki
[13:21] CB Axel: That will make it easier to deal with the time change. °͜°
[13:21] CB Axel: I hope you do have a nice vacation.
[13:22] herman Bergson: This was an easy lecture today ^_^
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes its winter time now soon
[13:22] herman Bergson: Again to the Island :-))
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:22] herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita
[13:23] herman Bergson: This was just an introductory story for what is coming up next :-)
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:24] herman Bergson: Guess I answered all your questions.....?
[13:24] CB Axel: That's nice for the people who didn't get here today.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes indeed.....
[13:24] herman Bergson: I'll post it immediately.
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thursday is as usual or?
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes...Thursday as usual Bejiita...even though I have this in mind.......
[13:26] CB Axel: LOL
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:27] herman Bergson: So I'd say...see you all again on Thursday :-)
[13:27] herman Bergson: Class dismissed .....^_^

[13:27] CB Axel: OK. See you Thursday. °͜°

Friday, October 20, 2017

683: The end of the unique Self ?

The latest news! It was in my newspaper this morning and on dozens of news sites. I found this on the  The Telegraph (UK) site:
   
“Thousands of years of human knowledge has been learned and surpassed by the world’s smartest computer in just 40 days, 
   
a breakthrough hailed as one of the greatest advances ever in artificial intelligence. 
  
Google DeepMind amazed the world last year when its AI programme AlphaGo beat world champion Lee Sedol at Go, 
  
an ancient and complex game of strategy and intuition which many believed could never be cracked by a machine. 
   
AlphaGo was so effective because it had been programmed with millions of moves of past masters, and could predict its own chances of winning, adjusting its game-plan accordingly. 
  
But now the same team has created a machine that learns from scratch. AlphaGo Zero was taught how to play Go, 
  
but given no additional instructions. Instead it learned the best moves over time, simply by playing millions of games against itself. “ -end quote-
  
For me, as a Go player myself, this is exciting news, but more exciting is that we have here a machine that learns from scratch.
  
The development of these self learning algorithms in Artificial Intelligence looks like a huge breakthrough.
    
Is this the beginning of the end? I mean this: in my newspaper of last Saturday they published an award winning essay.




   
A translation of the headline could be: The human mind unique? Forget it….
   
Pretty disappointing message, if you take into account, that we are spending our time on discovering how to understand the unique Self we have.
   
The argumentation of the author of the essay, Gijsbert Werner, is like this:
   
The question is: which scientific developments forces us to redefine ourselves and our position in the universe?
   
After every redefinition we have to conclude that we have become less unique than we thought we were in the universe.
   
1. The invention of the telescope forced us to accept that our universe is heliocentric and that earth is just a tiny spot in an endless universe.
  
2. Geology as science forced us to accept, that the earth is not as the bible says five or six thousand years old.
  
The earth is more than 4 billion years old and only a few million years ago man appeared on that earth.
  
So, we are not the center of the universe nor are we the crown on creation. We are just a rather unobtrusive species on a hardly noteworthy planet.
  
We have a complex brain, because our thoughts and experiences have a useful evolutionary function.
   
From an evolutionary point of view our mind is not a goal as such, but our mind is nothing more than a useful set of tools to stay alive in our (social) environment.
   
Research already has demonstrated that self-awareness is not a unique feature of homo sapiens anymore.
  
Neuroscience  still may be in its infancy, but with every discovery of the actual patterns and mechanisms 
   
that encode specific experiences and thoughts in the brain, it becomes clearer that our mind has a physical basis. 
   
At a very substantial level our thoughts are formed by interacting molecules and neurons. 
   
The more we can manipulate and intervene in these processes, the more undeniable it will be.
  
Fortunately, there remains a last line of defence for the defenders of the uniqueness of the human mind. 
   
After all, even if we fully understand how thoughts are formed in our brain, notions like self-consciousness may eventually be specific tothe  human brain. 
   
With a bit of luck, we may become more and more clear and transparent, but at least still unique in that respect.
   
With a computer, which accumulated real knowledge in 40 days which took Go players some 3000 years
   
and with a Self, which moved from the center of creation and universe to a result of physical processes on a hardly noteworthy planet,
   
I guess the moment is near, that we have to redefine ourselves again and our place in the universe.
   
Thank you again for your attention….. ^_^


The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: btw..the glasses in the picture behind me are my own RL glasses :-))
[13:20] CB Axel: LOL
[13:20] CB Axel: Nice touch
[13:20] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha
[13:21] herman Bergson: Take your time to redefine yourself today :-)
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): even if a computer can self learn it can still not feel what it is doing, behind this is a toolset that basically says, if true, store in your code, if false throw away and then it repeats this over and over and thus programs itself by only accepting the correct parts
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): here are the tools they use and I myself just started to explore( note a bit of python knowledge is good here)
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://www.tensorflow.org/ this is the machine learning toolkot
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...remember the Chinese room argument of John Searle to begin with
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se9ByBnKb0o&list=PLXO45tsB95cJHXaDKpbwr5fC_CCYylw1f
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and here a tutorial series how to use it
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this is i think wat go zero uses
[13:22] herman Bergson: a second matter is that computers are good at simulating cognitive process
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to learn by itself
[13:23] herman Bergson: AI is mainly about cognitive processes....
[13:23] herman Bergson: Why waisting money on simulating feelings by a computer?
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not a good idea i think too
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i think it is all about how to make safe self driving cars in the end
[13:24] CB Axel: Maybe computers will take over some day because they don't have feelings to get in the way of thinking.
[13:24] herman Bergson: Take the train Bejiita and you got one :-)
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bad thought cb
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but the train never works here in Sweden, you don’t get any value for your money
[13:25] herman Bergson: That indeed is a beloved SF theme CB...
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maintenance is not what it should be and they always say IT COST TOO MUCH TO FIX, LETS WAIT ¤= YEARS MORE
[13:25] herman Bergson: Terminator 1,2 and 3 are based on it
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): 40
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats sad cause trains are smooth in general to ride
[13:25] CB Axel: Vulcans made it work, but their world was destroyed in the end anyway.
[13:26] herman Bergson: Yeah..so was happy Spock survived :-))
[13:26] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): ;-)
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I think that the future will be very interesting with the changes in genetic knowledge
[13:26] CB Axel: But he was half human. He did have emotions that got in the way occasionally. °͜°
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to the brain and the mid
[13:27] herman Bergson: But this new achievement of Google DeepMind is significant...
[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and perhaps self
[13:27] herman Bergson: The rules of Go are very simple...
[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...
[13:28] herman Bergson: give such a computer the basic rules of whatever...genes....DNA...
[13:28] herman Bergson: and let it reckon
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it is interesting, i just need to get a grasp of this tensor flow thing, its not entirely easy to understand how it works, basically it operates with 2 or 3 dimensional matrixes of data (tensors)
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i want to find out how it works, its exciting stuff
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it has been discovered that ocd is caused by  two genes that are lacking something
[13:28] CB Axel: Really?
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so may be controlled in the future
[13:28] CB Axel: Interesting.
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): just heard about that the other day
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so perhaps other mental problems will be changed also
[13:29] herman Bergson: that is what the developers of AlphaGo Zero hope for too Gemma
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yet I think that again we see that the cognitive achievements of machines are somehow equated with the human MIND
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one very early example of ai (if this is ai now) is a computer who foresaw a totally unknown physics phenomenon by combining all known physics phenomenon, it sorted out a deadly flamethrower like fire disatster in londins subway,
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the phenomenon is called the trench effect
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a computer figured it out by itself after being fed data from the disaster
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they tested it and ut turned out to work just like that
[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...that may be the future
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_effect
[13:32] herman Bergson: But I wonder...what does it mean to design a machine that has feelings...
[13:32] herman Bergson: ~Like our brain produces
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it says nothing about a computer figuring it out but that was how it was done
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm indeed, can it be possible even?
[13:33] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Sooner or later human consciousness will be uploaded into computer memories, and we'll be immortal
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a computer just see on and off, 1 and 0 no matter what it does
[13:33] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I mean, they will
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we on the other hand are analog
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or are we, how does the brain process our senses?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Theoretically you may be right John....
[13:34] CB Axel: Our brains are digital, but in a very complex way, aren't they?
[13:34] herman Bergson: But is it possible to create machines for all individual biochemical/neural processes of all individuals?
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i doubt anything consisting of billions of electrical on and off switches can feel however, 1 and 0 is so far from the analog continuous world
[13:35] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Neurons are like bits I think
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and who is paying for it all
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:35] CB Axel: A neuron is getting a signal or not.
[13:35] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): they are interconnected
[13:35] herman Bergson: GOOD QUESTION Gemma ^_^
[13:35] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): and all works on electrical signals, as in a computer
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you need DACs and ADCs to translate between the analog world and the computer
[13:35] herman Bergson: and what would be the goal of it...immortality??
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): frightning thought
[13:35] herman Bergson: and what when we run out of electicity John???
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Even now computers are like prothesis to our brains
[13:36] herman Bergson: instant death to all?
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): they enhance our memory
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): almost
[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): our devices are memory aids and boosters
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed, computers are awesome machines and they are much faster then we on doing stuff and what they do they repeat over and over without mistake (as long there is no bugs lurking somewhere)
[13:37] herman Bergson: yet not persons....not a Slef...
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but they are still dumb,
[13:37] herman Bergson: at least not in my computer :-)
[13:37] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): when a strong electrical current interferes with the electrical impulses that make our heats go we die
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but tensorflow and similar tools might be a bit on the way to smarter computers, a must for a traffic safe auto driving car or something similar
[13:38] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): people can be programmed like computers and often are
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you dint want to travel at 100 km/h and suddenly crash into a wall or lorry because the computer missed something
[13:38] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): pavlov and pedagogy
[13:38] herman Bergson: Let's conclude that computers are better at cognitive tasks than man....
[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:39] herman Bergson: but that they still are symbol manipulating machines only
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): how do you make a computer "see" what is a road and what is not for example
[13:39] herman Bergson: The big difference is that WE know what we are doing because we have a Self....computers don't
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it have no concept of either roads driving or safety
[13:40] herman Bergson: they just do what they do
[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): roads can be installed sensors to guide cars
[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Computers are evolving fast
[13:40] herman Bergson: Just imagine the computer that says...oh my..what am I doing...should I be doing this?
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but what it does it repeats with great accuracy, far better and faster then we, it is the interpretation of our analog world , images sounds ect that is difficult for a computer to do
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it sees only 1 and 0
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I bet we are computers too in a way
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): most of what we do responds to an inner program we have
[13:41] herman Bergson: it is the other way around John....
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): self
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): main objective of the program is reproduction and survival of the species
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): it is both ways
[13:41] herman Bergson: computers do thing s WE also do but not as good as the machine
[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): we create machines that imitate ourselves
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): look at a car attentively, you'll see a car has eyes, a nose and an anus
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in the computers infancy (ENIAC time) they were referred to as gigant electric brains)
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): and the anus is behind while the eyes are in the front
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:42] herman Bergson: we are not like computers but computers are like us :-)
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (falls over anime style) THUD!
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): we make what we know.
[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): computers are going to be integrated into the human body
[13:43] herman Bergson: But computer can make what we do not know....
[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): right now there are workers that are inserted microchips underskin
[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): they are already out there
[13:43] CB Axel: There are also people with computer aided prosthetics.
[13:43] herman Bergson: The AlphaGo Zero computer played Go in a way even the professional never had thought of
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: In opening and end games it came up with totally new strategies...and WON always..
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like that other computer program foresaw the trench effect, even way before the time of tensorflow although i think tensorflow is a bit mor advanced, that other computer had all known physics data in it and knew how to combine it
[13:44] herman Bergson: really amazing...
[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): in information processing tasks they must be imbattable
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it is indeed
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...to  conclude this lecture...my advise..
[13:45] herman Bergson: Buy yourself all a computer,,,,
[13:45] herman Bergson: Quite handy :-)
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): try tensorflow!
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako):
[13:46] herman Bergson: Thank you all again for your participation :-)
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i’ll at last see if i can learn something of it
[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: thank you
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it seem a bit tricky
[13:46] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again