689: How good do we know our Self ?

In the previous lecture I brought to your attention the “First-Person-Perspective” - theory of Richard Moran.

   

The Self as a permanent witness, searching for reasons and arguments why you mean what you mean.

   

This is however a rather rationalist approach of our Self. The theory sounds attractive but there are some shortcomings.

   

This First person perspective deals with what we think. But what do we know about ourselves in relation to what we feel?

   

If you say, that you are a liberal, you look outside into the world and you point out the reasons why it is your conviction.

    

But what when you are in love, or feel ashamed or relieved. Sometimes you even can not find any reasonable argument why you feel that way.

   

And there is another problem. We may easily say of ourselves that we are no racists. We regard all people as equal.

     

But is that really true? Are we so broad minded? You may be surprised to discover how many prejudices are active in your mind. These are called implicit biases or prejudices.

    

Let's start with a somewhat lugubrious riddle: a father and his son are involved in a car accident. 

   

The father dies on the spot, the son is seriously injured. He is taken to the hospital, where the surgeon present is shocked and stutters: "This boy is my son!" 

  

How is this possible? Any idea???

     

If the right answer to this riddle did not immediately come to mind, this is probably because you are unconsciously regarding surgery as a male profession. 

   

Because of this association it does not occur to you that the surgeon in question is not the father, but the mother of the boy. 

   

We are all familiar with the existence of implicit prejudices, such as hidden in stereotypes. When you think of the caring parent, 

   

you think of a mother who is busy with diapers and baby bottles. 

    

When you think of a doctor, you think of a man in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck. 

    

Because these prejudices are explicit, we can basically correct them: a man can also take care of the children, just as a woman can be a doctor. 

    

But there are also implicit or unconscious stereotypes that play a role in our thinking and acting, and that can have vicious consequences. 

   

An implicit bias is a judgment about something or someone that is based on a stereotype and that you are not aware of. 

   

It is a judgment that is not accessible to you, and that you literally have nothing to say about. This makes it difficult to correct, while it does affect your behavior.

   

They did experiments with this phenomenon. They hid the names of applicants, because it had become clear,

   

that when HRM- people saw the name ‘Mohammed’ or ‘Mustafa’ the letter  almost automatically end up on the ‘REJECTED” pile. 

   

So they anonymised the letters of application to escape this unconscious bias.

   

If you’re interested in your own biases, do the tests Harvard is offering and have fun and get to know yourself more.

    

Thank you for your attention again….and for the tests….go to https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

The Discussion

[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): sorry I missed half of the lecture, I crashed

[13:22] CB Axel: That will be fun.

[13:22] herman Bergson: I took one myself....

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and so did I

[13:22] herman Bergson: The one on religion

[13:23] herman Bergson: But that was not revealing an implicit bias at all ...I knew what I was thinking about the subject :-))

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that first one got me for sure, indeed it seems even I who think high of equality feel for that one, maybe indeed because no matter what, the first image that comes into my mind when I hear the word Surgeon is a male character even I think indeed women can be equally good surgeons

[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): probably cause thats what you see in hospital series ect

[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Bejiita...

[13:24] oola Neruda: my niece is a doctor and her husband is a stay at home father / musician

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): only after a few seconds it occurred to me

[13:25] Guestboook van tipjar stand: Gemma Cleanslate donated L$50. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that was a mind working test for sure

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i will check them out later

[13:26] herman Bergson: My test result on religion bias :-))

[13:26] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)

[13:26] herman Bergson smiles

[13:26] herman Bergson: I was pleased with it :-))

[13:27] herman Bergson: But the interesting fact is indeed....

[13:27] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you get the result immediately?

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I guess it works like one of these computer operated FB tests but more refined

[13:28] herman Bergson: that what we say is not always shown in what we do, due to implicit biases we have and are not aware of

[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Beertje

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): shall look at the mm later when I can think

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ok:)

[13:29] herman Bergson: Was a bit sneaky of me to choose religion....

[13:29] herman Bergson: I am not biased about that subject at all...I have my opinions there ^_^

[13:30] CB Axel: So you weren't surprised by your preference for Judaism?

[13:30] herman Bergson: No...the choice was Judaism or Islam....so easy choice for me :-)

[13:30] CB Axel: If you had shown a preference for Islam, would that had surprised you?

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no other choices?

[13:31] herman Bergson: Teh fun of these tests is that they monitor the speed of your reaction to some questions...

[13:31] herman Bergson: How quick do youpress a key on your keyboard...

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as fast as I can

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): without introducing typos or bugs

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but seems i do anyway

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:32] herman Bergson: no  no...

[13:32] herman Bergson: you only need to press the 'E" or 'I" to make your choice

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or you mean how long i wonder over one of these questions?

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Im gonna try later and see

[13:33] herman Bergson: you have to connect 'good' or 'bad' to concepts...

[13:33] herman Bergson whispers: Is fun...:-)

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we can't think it over?

[13:34] herman Bergson: no...

[13:34] herman Bergson: immediate answer is demanded

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hmm

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed i can say i have more negative connections to islam because of all terror wars and shit is connected to it, however I also know that this is probably not the true or real version of Islam

[13:35] oola Neruda: you are right...it is a distortion of Islam

[13:35] herman Bergson: I know Bejiita...same here...but yet...:-)

[13:35] CB Axel: And Arabs in Israel probably have a bias against Judaism.

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

[13:35] CB Axel: To Arabs, the Jews are the terrorists.

[13:35] herman Bergson: I bet they have CB :-)

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): some of them were in past days

[13:36] oola Neruda: nods

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): blowing up a hotel lobby is terrorism

[13:36] herman Bergson: But the main point of today was, that we can have implicit biases we are not aware of, so how well do we know our Self

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i am sure

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and it seems i have one indeed according to that first test

[13:37] herman Bergson: OK..any questions or remarks left?

[13:37] herman Bergson: unsaid?

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its what first comes to mind

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

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that is the bias

[13:38] herman Bergson: often it is Bejiita, I think

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like that surgeon = male thing

[13:38] herman Bergson: Like your hair...:-)))

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): lol

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

[13:38] herman Bergson: Guy must be nuts....

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

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:39] herman Bergson: Oh...Bejiita is a normal nice guy...oops

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sayan

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a happy and a bit crazy saiyan guy

[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): he is special:)

[13:39] herman Bergson: normal

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats me

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

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

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at rast im a bit unique even rl

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but we all are in some way i guess

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as it should be

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

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): visit the lea Faces

[13:40] herman Bergson: So true Bejiita...

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is very interesting

[13:40] herman Bergson: What is that Gemma?

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): based on a survey of members 2015

[13:40] oola Neruda: what is the..... lea faces?

[13:41] CB Axel: I need to visit LEA sometime soon.

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): an installation in the Lindens arts

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh yes you shoudl

[13:41] CB Axel: I haven't been there in a long time.

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah

[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): wil lpass the lm

[13:41] herman Bergson: Where is it?

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Ive been there some times but a while now since

[13:41] Second Life: Gemma Cleanslate gave you LEA23 Faces (that we see) by ilyra chardin.

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

[13:42] CB Axel: Go when you have a lot of time. It covers something like 20 regions. °͜°

[13:42] herman Bergson: oh my

[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its kind of big indeed I think

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

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

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): nto this exhibit

[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): instead of ging to Schier you go to LEA :)

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): only one

[13:43] CB Axel: That one exhibit won't be that big. °͜°

[13:43] CB Axel: But they are usually all worth checking out.

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

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is the entrance

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Gemma

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to this exhibit

[13:43] herman Bergson: oh dear....homework.....:-))

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): llol

[13:44] oola Neruda: lol

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well it sort of fits with the idea of knowing self

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or others

[13:44] herman Bergson: OK...everybody off to Lea....Class dismissed :-)))

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ill check it

[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :)

[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you all again...

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): enjoy

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but first i m gonna attend a steampunk theme party

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:45] herman Bergson: Have fun Bejiita :-)

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

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

688: The Self gets shape....

“For millions of years, many creatures have had an active mind, but only in those who developed a self, 

    

capable of functioning as a witness of the mind, its existence was recognized, and only after the mind had developed the language and could tell about it , it became widely known that the mind exists. 

     

The Self as a witness is an additional ability that reveals in each of us the presence of events that we call 'mental'. 

     

We would like to understand how that extra power has been created.” This is how Antonio Damasio formulates in “Self comes to Mind” (2010)

   

Slowly but steadily the Self gets shape. I even dare to say, that we KNOW things about our Self now.

   

To begin with, the Self is not  a “something” or a special sense, but it can be regarded as an ongoing proces, a special function of the mind.

    

A mind which lacks this witness, is still a mind. But because our Self is the only natural means to know our mind, are we completely depending  on its presence, its powers and limitations.

   

The Interpretations like Gilbert Ryle from the previous lecture, assumed that we do not have direct access to our mental states, 

   

but conclude that we have certain beliefs, desires and intentions based on perceptions of our physical behavior. 

     

An alternative view of self-knowledge and first-person-authority is encountered in Richard Moran's work. 

   

He is a Harvard professor of  Philosophy of Mind and Moral Philosophy. Moran's theory is based on the idea 

  

that there is a direct link between first-person-authority and actively determining what you think of something. 

  

Imagine someone asking you if you think there will be a Third World War. What are you doing in such a case? 

  

Proponents of the introspection theory suggest that you can answer this question by looking inside, 

  

and looking for the conviction that a Third World War is coming or not. 

  

But according to Moran something else happens: you do not look inside but outside.       

   

You do not ask yourself a question about something inside you, but instead you look at what's happening in the world. 

   

You ask yourself this question: "Are there any reasons to believe that there will be a Third World War?" 

   

Then you make a decision based on various events in the world that could give you reason to think that this is the case or not and come to a conclusion: "No, I do not think there will be a Third World War. ' 

   

You answer a question about what you think of something, a question about your inner world by answering another question about the outside world. 

  

Or, in other words, you answer a question about self-knowledge in terms of 'world knowledge'. 

  

What Moran is all about is, that it's Your business what you think of something. That constitutes your Self. 

  

When you say what you think, you do not act as a passive spectator of your own mental states. 

    

You appoint yourself as an authority in this field, as an active witness. Interpretationists, as we saw in the previous lecture, claim that self-knowledge is a matter of interpretation.     

    

We know ourselves in the same indirect way as we know others, by observing our behavior from a distance, and connecting certain conclusions. 

    

We therefore also say that the theory of interpretation presupposes a 'third person perspective' on yourself, so the perspective of an outsider. 

   

Moran, on the other hand, emphasizes that we initially know ourselves from a "first person perspective”, ​​as a thinking and acting subject.

    

From this first-person perspective, you do not wonder, "What's in my mind?" But "What should I believe as autonomous thinking creatures?"

      

Moran's theory is also called rationalistic or deliberative: self-knowledge is obtained by weighing reasons for or against a particular judgment. 

   

The question is what, for these reasons, you should believe as rational being about the advent of a Third World War. 

    

Or, to take another example, what you should think about the equality of men and women, young people and the elderly, Dutch and Moroccans. 

     

According to Moran, you can find out what you really think by thinking about the reasons for believing that people are equal. 

  

There is a certain amount of controlling power from such a thinking process: if you think there are indeed convincing reasons to believe that all men are equal, 

  

then you should conclude that you really feel this as a rational person. Otherwise, this leads to paradoxical statements, such as: "All people are equal, but I do not believe."

    

This sounds  all quite interesting:  the Self as a witness of the mind. The Self gets shape.

  

Thank you for your attention… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

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

[13:25] herman Bergson smiles

[13:25] herman Bergson: My pleasure Beertje :-)

[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): difficult..I have to read it over

[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes I understand...

[13:26] herman Bergson: The ida is that what you call yourself

[13:26] herman Bergson: is some kind of reasoning...looking outward for arguments of your opinions

[13:27] herman Bergson: Talking about a Self always gives us the feeling that there must be SOMETHING...

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: I disagree with Moran which might not surprise ;) - as to the why... thats complex.

[13:28] herman Bergson: I guess that us our first mistake...

[13:28] herman Bergson: You surprise me  Ciska ^_^

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: I do?;)

[13:28] CB Axel giggles

[13:28] herman Bergson: explain?

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: Morans self seems equivalent of the buddhist ego

[13:29] herman Bergson: ohh ...:-)

[13:29] herman Bergson: That's new to me...

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: from my point of view his self is the rationalized expression of a feeling

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: when u take the question : will there be a world war three?

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: there is nor "correct" answer to that of course until we have it ;)

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: that means that we start to rationalize all the information we have

[13:30] herman Bergson: his basic idea is that we constitute our self by looking outward for reasons why we have some opinion...

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: around the gut feeling

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: and then start to argue

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: because we simply cannot know

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): until trump and Kim start hurl nuclear bombs over the world but then it is too late and there will be no more minds cause we have all been blown up

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: ah

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so i really hope there will be no ww 3

[13:31] CB Axel: Yes. That's why there won't be a World War 3. °͜°

[13:31] herman Bergson: no no...there you seem to be wrong, Ciska..

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: thats exactly one reason  I disagree :  his basic idea is that we constitute our self by looking outward for reasons why we have some opinion...

[13:32] herman Bergson: There you are right....

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: my thesis is

[13:32] herman Bergson: for it can apply to such empirical issues like..is there coming a war or not....

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: we have an opinion and looking outward to verbalize it

[13:32] herman Bergson: But it doesn’t apply to feelings...

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: the verbalization is the point

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: its the hen egg question

[13:33] herman Bergson: I agree..he is to rationalist...

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: what’s there first - the feeling or the argumentation

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: and the truth is

[13:33] CB Axel: But in the case of a world war, I do look outside myself for what I think about the possibility of war.

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: in such questions...

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: the feeling is there

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: and we find arguments for it

[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Cb....

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: so there is still a we...

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: who does that

[13:34] herman Bergson: his theory applies to such issues....

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: of course u do cb - but you use it to describe your feeling

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: which you already have

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: its a communicational thing

[13:35] CB Axel: My feeling is based on what I know about Trump and Kim and what's going on in the world.

[13:35] herman Bergson: But where did that feeling come from Ciska???

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: (and its the reason why I make a difference between consciousness and awareness)

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thats the question

[13:35] herman Bergson: from the outside...

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: why?

[13:36] herman Bergson: because you read newspapers and follow the News on TV

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: obviously there will be different answers to the ww3 question...

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: some people will say yes

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: some no

[13:36] herman Bergson: of course

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: and both will have arguments

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: which go together with their own experiences in lfe

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: life

[13:37] herman Bergson: but that doesn’t change the fact that You have your own opinion about it...which is linked to your Self

[13:37] herman Bergson: That is you

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: opinion is based on feeling and experience

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

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: so the self is feeling and experience

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its all that you perceive and you can then choose to communicate it to someone else

[13:38] herman Bergson: I think so yes

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

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: the strange thing about experience is... that you can connect it with wrong "sense"

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: in the sense of language

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

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: want an example?

[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: (or does that go too far?)

[13:38] herman Bergson: plz?!

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): tell us Ciska

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: ok a child which was abused early on in childhood by its parents... grows up to have a distorted view of love... the word love is connected to negative stuff which has happened to that child early one

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: so when that child does not learn to reflect early on

[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: what often happens is

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: that love is connected for example with getting a beating

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: its "normal"

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa ok

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: it does belong there

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then i get it

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: the feeling of the child is still

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: somehow this is wrong

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: and that leads to a lot of confusion

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: but the word love

[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: might have another meaning for this becoming grown up

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: as for people who had caring homes

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: with no such things

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: so if you communicate with that person later on - and he or she has not learned to reflect that

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: they might be confused by how you use the word love

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: they might not be able to really express why

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: they see on tv its very different then what they experienced (!!!)

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: but if they haven’t learned how to reflect

[13:43] herman Bergson: I understand,,,,but what is the relation here with the Self as we experience it

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: they simply stunned.

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: the relation here lays in communication

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: the self exists without communication

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: its there

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: it consists out of experiences

[13:44] herman Bergson: yes

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: those experiences

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: it strings up with words

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: so it can exchange with other selves

[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: how it does that

[13:45] CB Axel: So animals without language have no sense of self?

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: totally depends on the experience

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: thats the question cb

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: I would say they are aware

[13:45] herman Bergson: that is not true CB....a number of animals have a clear sense of a self

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one thing is for sure and that is that this person need to know about and experience what real love actually is, its a suh important thing to have

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

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: but for consciousness - exchange about the awareness - they lack language

[13:46] CB Axel: I agree, Herman. I'm just trying to get my mind around what Ciska is saying.

[13:46] herman Bergson: mee too

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes bejiita - but its really hard for folks... there is an incredible film in german about this...

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok

[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s63mL7K7J2g)

[13:48] herman Bergson: But what is your point Ciska...that somepeople have a distorted self - image?

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: no

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: my point is that to exchange about consciousness we need language

[13:48] herman Bergson: ok

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: but what we express in the language does not describe the same experiences

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: because we connect experiences to words we get from others which can go "right " or wrong

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: the self consists of experiences

[13:50] CB Axel: True. I tend to look at people's behavior rather than their words to try to understand them.

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: the language distracts from that

[13:50] herman Bergson: as I said...it is a process not a thing

[13:50] herman Bergson: Indeed CB

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

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: I said I disagree with Moran - and that pretty much why ;)

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: rationalizing needs words

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: ,)

[13:51] herman Bergson whispers: Well every one can reread all argumentation on the blog :-)

[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: sure

[13:52] herman Bergson: Guess we did a fine job again today ...:-)

[13:52] herman Bergson: So thank you all again for your participation...

[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): gives me a lot to think

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

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting ideas as usual

[13:53] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^

[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

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

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

687: Gilbert Ryle and Interpretationalism

Our present main question is how we obtain knowledge about our Self. One way is by means of introspection.

   

But according to Wittgenstein this does not give is exclusive private knowledge about our Self.

   

We first have to learn the meaning of concepts in our social context before we can apply them to our private experiences.

     

There is also an other approach possible. According to supporters of the so-called ‘Interpretation Theory'

    

there is no fundamental difference between the way we know ourselves and the way we know others. 

   

Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976), the man of the ‘category mistake’ in lecture 681, is one of the philosophers who have claimed 

   

that the asymmetry normally assumed between self-knowledge and the knowledge of others does not exist. 

   

Ryle writes: “… in principle, John’s ways to find out about John are the same as John’s ways to find out about his girlfriend Maralyn. “

   

According to Ryle, it is misleading to claim, as Descartes and other introspectionists seem to do, 

     

that we actually do two things when we think: thinking on the one hand, and thinking about something introspectively on the other hand. 

    

According to Ryle, the idea that we can sense our thoughts directly with our inner eye is absurd. 

     

How does self-knowledge work? Ryle claims that self-knowledge is a matter of interpretation rather than introspection. 

     

We do not have direct access to our mental states, but conclude that we have certain beliefs, desires and intentions based on perceptions of our physical behavior. 

     

For example, I'm aware of the fact that I'm tired when I'm yawning all the time. I notice that I'm happy when I jump singing on the bike and love to go to work. 

    

Furthermore, we often only find out what we really want, if we actually see it before us. You get a beautiful necklace as a gift and you think: Exactly what I had in mind! 

    

You order a pizza salami and when the waiter puts it in front of you, you think: I'd rather have had the lasagne. 

     

Although Ryle and other  Interpretationists do not fundamentally distinguish between self-knowledge and knowledge of others, 

     

they accept that you have access to more  information when interpreting yourself. 

      

If we try to understand the behavior of others, the information we have at our disposal is often limited to "external" information we derive from sensory perception. 

      

In the case of self-interpretation, we can often also use 'internal' information, for example about the position of our body and our limbs, 

      

or about our physical needs, such as hunger, thirst, oxygen deficiency and the like. In addition, we can sometimes "catch up" with an internal monologue.    

      

Just as we interpret the behavior of others based on the available information, we do that for ourselves too. 

     

Thus there is no contradiction between direct self-knowledge and indirect knowledge of others.

     

In fact, the knowledge we have of ourselves and others is indirect. It is based on an interpretation of the evidence that we have at some point. 

     

This means that in both cases we can make a wrong conclusion, for example because we have insufficient or incorrect information. 

      

For example, you can conclude that you are nervous while you have only drunk too much coffee 

     

or you are angry with your partner while you are actually disappointed about something. Such misinterpretations are typically human. 

     

Because Interpretationists do not fundamentally distinguish between self-knowledge and knowledge of other people, 

      

they do not seem to value first-person authority much. 

    

But maybe there are other ways to guarantee the special status of self-knowledge without calling for introspection?

    

Thank you for your attention… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: In other words....

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): dont know what to say since i dont agree

[13:24] herman Bergson: To know yourself isn't anything more special than to know your friend for instance

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to me that seems very very odd

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes Gemma

[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): strange thought

[13:25] herman Bergson: and that is because we seem to believe that introspection is special

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes i do

[13:25] CB Axel: I suppose that could be the case when you consider the extra information we have about ourselves.

[13:25] CB Axel: That's the only difference

[13:26] CB Axel: But don't we gain the extra information we have about ourselves through introspection?

[13:26] herman Bergson: yes,but how reliable is that knowledge?

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but still we can "read" our own mind but we cant do telepathy into someone else’s brain so some difference it have to be

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): why we need a psychologist sometimes i guess

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm

[13:26] herman Bergson: They did experiments.....

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): trying sore all out

[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort

[13:27] herman Bergson: They showed people two pictures ...a blond and a brunette woman...

[13:27] herman Bergson: then asked...which one do you like?

[13:27] herman Bergson: When someone said...the brunette they showed the person the picture of the blonde

[13:27] herman Bergson: and asked him why he preferred this one...

[13:28] herman Bergson: only 20 percent noticed that it was not the picture of their choice and gave reasons why they picked the shown photo

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not all there

[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hmm

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

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: do not see the relevance

[13:29] herman Bergson: There were similar tests...

[13:29] CB Axel: That could be because it didn't really matter to them.

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right ciska

[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or they were thinking about the turkey they would eat

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: or it could be because they really found this stupid ,)

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

[13:30] herman Bergson: People do not seem to know themselves that well regarding their preferences and choices

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: ( I was in a test once - found it superstupid and did a lot of just answering out of the blue without any connenction)

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope you passed

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: people do not like to be nailed down to some sort of choices

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: it was some marketing thing - I only did it for the price ;))

[13:31] herman Bergson: I agree Ciska...such tests do not explain much....

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: there are tests which  do show much more

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: but this particular one

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: ????

[13:32] herman Bergson: But in the test I mentioned people were shown afterwards which picture they really had chosen....

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: not sure what they wanted to show

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): what do we mean when we way we know ourselves or others THE SAME WAY

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:32] herman Bergson: some even didn’t believe it

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hte same process??

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: maybe they were fed u p like me ;)

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): thinking about the things we learn of others?

[13:33] herman Bergson: it means that we interpret their behavior the same whay as we interpret our own behavior Gemma

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok well

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: or their concentration was low - or they do not  really prefer any kind of hair colour over the other

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interpret is a good work i guess

[13:34] herman Bergson: This theme made me think about the neuroscientific discussion on Free Will

[13:34] CB Axel: Interpreting other's behavior the way we do our own is dangerous.

[13:34] herman Bergson: where some deny free will and

[13:35] herman Bergson: say that our rational part of the brain is just coming up with explanations of our acts afterwards

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

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

[13:35] herman Bergson: I know what I think when I hear what is say, seems to be the idea here :-)

[13:36] herman Bergson: Interpreting behavior of others like we interpret our own dangerous CB?

[13:36] CB Axel: Sure.

[13:36] herman Bergson: In what way?

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they may be lying

[13:37] CB Axel: I can see a man petting a cat, for instance. I love cats, so I would probably think, "Oh. He likes cats, too."

[13:38] CB Axel: But what if he was just trying to get close to the cat so he could catch it, kill it, and eat it for Thanksgiving dinner?

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

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

[13:38] herman Bergson grins

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Roof Rabbit:)

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

[13:38] CB Axel: Not so dangerous for me, perhaps, but really bad for the cat.

[13:38] herman Bergson: You would notice that sitting at his table CB :-)

[13:38] CB Axel: And me, if he invites me to dinner!

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): eating cats for thanksgiving? i prefer the turkey I think

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and cuddle the cat

[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we will never know what another person thinks

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:39] herman Bergson: As I said...you can make mistakes in interpreting behvior....guess we do that often

[13:39] CB Axel: And just look at Donald Trump? I don't think he knows what he thinks. It changes from day to day.

[13:40] herman Bergson: Well..not with 100% certainty indeed Beertje

[13:40] CB Axel: But if I'm petting a cat, I know it's because I like cats.

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

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

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): imagine knowing him

[13:40] CB Axel whispers: To pet, not to eat.

[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Trump has Alsheimer

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): never figure that out

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Trump just splutter non consistent goo

[13:40] CB Axel: I can't know for sure what the other guy petting the cat is thinking.

[13:41] CB Axel: Not by looking at his behavior.

[13:41] herman Bergson: Just keep a close watch on him CB ...you might save a cat's life ^_^

[13:41] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): lol

[13:41] CB Axel: Behavior over time, I guess, would tell me. But jumping to conclusions about a stranger could be dangerous.

[13:41] herman Bergson: But CB....

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: mh - but how do you get out of that usually?

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it will take a lot to convince me that the method or results are the same

[13:42] herman Bergson: never been in the situation asking your self...what  am I doing now????

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone whispers: (by introspection ;) )

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): those people must havve been disputed by others

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I am aure

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sure even

[13:42] CB Axel: Yes, but I can usually answer that quickly.

[13:42] CB Axel: Through introspection.

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:43] herman Bergson: By interpreting your behavior...:-)

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ryle that is

[13:43] CB Axel: Not necessarily.

[13:43] herman Bergson: We'll see next time Gemma...don't worry :-))

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i wont

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): never intended to

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

[13:44] CB Axel: I can ask myself, "Why am I finding myself attracted to someone who is bad for me?"

[13:44] herman Bergson: Very philosophical Gemma :-))

[13:44] CB Axel: I can't answer that through looking at my behavior.

[13:45] herman Bergson: As Ryle said....you have some mor einformation about yourself than just your behavior...

[13:45] herman Bergson: you also can notice your personal feelings for instance

[13:45] CB Axel: And that information is found through introspection.

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): for others we have just the behavior information

[13:46] herman Bergson: yes

[13:46] CB Axel: Right, Beertje!

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yay:)

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok

[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): but what do we have more for ourselves?

[13:47] herman Bergson: That is actually the question Beertje....

[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): and you will tell us that the next time?

[13:48] herman Bergson: We are searching for a self and a way to know this Self...

[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): all our life experiences from childhood

[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hmm

[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes they exist Gemma....it makes us who we are.....

[13:49] herman Bergson: but those who assume the existence of a self

[13:49] herman Bergson: assume that there is something persistent through time in us....like a soul or so

[13:50] Guestboook van tipjar stand: CB Axel donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!

[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe we don't have a soul at all

[13:50] CB Axel: Persistent through all time or just through our lives?

[13:50] herman Bergson: and in the search of this Self, I still havent found something like that in my thoughts and experiences

[13:51] herman Bergson: through time = our life

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): again some of these words are interchangeable depending you personal belief

[13:51] herman Bergson: And atm we ask..how can we KNOW this Self...

[13:51] CB Axel: That which persists through our lives is our memories.

[13:52] herman Bergson: I mean something persisting through our lifetime...

[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

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

[13:52] herman Bergson: Guess we have  to continue thinking about it :-)

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

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

[13:53] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): what about people with Alzheimer? they don't have memories

[13:53] CB Axel: True

[13:53] herman Bergson: MAybe next time a little closer to an answer ^_^

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they do of old days

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): for a while anyway

[13:53] CB Axel: I'm looking forward to next time. °͜°

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): maybe is the word of the day

[13:53] herman Bergson: Me too CB ^_^

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): month

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

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

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

[13:54] herman Bergson: Almost looks like I am loosing my self more and more here atm :-)

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

[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): why Herman?

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): needs to run off

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): too much red wine?

[13:54] herman Bergson: just kidding Beertje :-))

[13:54] CB Axel: Bye, Gemma.

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

[13:55] herman Bergson: So thank you all for your participation again :-))

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

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): bye Gemma

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

[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...

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

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

[13:55] CB Axel: See you all on Tuesday. °͜°

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we get closer and closer but will we reach a conclusion

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

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

[13:55] CB Axel: Goedenavond, peeps