skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In 1994 Antonio R. Damasio, one of the world's leading neurobiologists, published his book "Descartes' Error - Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain". Because I was teaching my computer classes at an Academy of Fine Art, I was completely unaware of this important fact.All subjects we are discussing here today have emerged in neurobiology, evolutionary psychology and the philosophy of mind during the past 25 years, if we take the important work of Patricia Churchland "Neurophilosophy" (1986) as a milestone.But Descartes (1596 - 1650) was born more than 400 years ago? Yet, the modern conception of the philosophy of mind begins with his work.This French philosopher articulated a crucial distinction between two kinds of substances, mental and physical. This was a really convenient solution for a growing problem.The world had become a world of physical science in his time. No longer was the world explained by referring to the Hand of God or mysterious witchcraft or alchemy.The world had become a world of mechanically explicable processes, simple chains of cause and effect, a world where the saying became stronger and stronger: "I first want to really see it, before I gonna believe it."In 2003 Damasio published another book: "Looking for Spinoza - Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain". In Dutch the title became "Het Gelijk van Spinoza" (The Rightness of Spinoza). A reference to Decartes' Error.Was Descartes in error? In fact extracted the mind from matter by his famous "Cogito, ergo sum." (I think, therefore I exist.) For existing you only have to be aware of your thoughts. You don't need a material body for that…… that "material body" can be just an imagination, a thought itself.So he came to the conclusion that the physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics and….that the mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness. For this conclusion he had strong arguments: a basic principle from Leibniz, the “indiscernibility of identicals”: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing—then anything true of one is true of the other. Descartes argued: I can doubt that I have a body or any part of a body. I can even doubt that I have a brain—maybe that is part of the illusion. I cannot doubt that I have a mind. There is, therefore, something true of my mind that is true of no part of my body: I cannot doubt that I have it. It follows by Leibniz’s principle that my mind cannot be my body or any part of my body. My mind cannot be my brain. And thus was DUALISM born. Physical things, Descartes says, are always extended and occupy space. Mental things do not have physical dimension in the same way. Spinoza as a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part.That is why Spinoza definitely was not liked by the church. Descartes had his problems with the church, but his dualism saved the soul and gave the physical realm to science.In 1984 John Searle, a leading philosopher of mind, formulated the problem of Dualism thus:At the moment, the biggest problem is this: We have a certain commonsense picture of ourselves as human beings which is very hard to square with our overall 'scientific' conception of the physical world. We think of ourselves as conscious, free, mindful, rational agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of mindless, meaningless physical particles. Now, how can we square these two conceptions? How, for example, can it be the case that the world contains nothing but unconscious physical particles, and yet that it also contains consciousness? How can a mechanical universe contain intentionalistic human beings – that is, human beings that can represent the world to themselves? How, in short, can an essentially meaningless world contain meanings?Was Descartes showing us a real problem or was he really mistaken and made he us look for centuries in the wrong direction?The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that in the next lecture...:-))[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: ok interesting..:)[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours[13:24] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): we seem to be driven to think that like should have a meaning[13:24] Zinzi Serevi: it has a meaning when we give it and only then[13:24] herman Bergson: what do you mean aristotle[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): when we look for meaning, why would there be meaning?[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes..but what is meant to say is that when giving a meaning to something...it is a representation in our mind of the intended object[13:26] herman Bergson: No...we create meaning by reflecting on the world around us...[13:26] herman Bergson: That is a special about consciousness...[13:26] herman Bergson: We can represnt the world in our mind[13:26] herman Bergson: And think about it....[13:27] herman Bergson: We have symbols...like the word chair....and we can think about it, even when there is no chair around...[13:28] herman Bergson: But that is just one of the complex faculties of the mind[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes its objective representation in our subjective minds[13:28] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is our weird experience....[13:28] herman Bergson: that we really have the feeling that the mind , our consciousness is something apart from our body[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): of course I feel that is true[13:29] herman Bergson: And descartes took it one step further....[13:30] herman Bergson: He even thought that the mental was not material...[13:30] herman Bergson: Next lecture I'll show you that it got him into serious trouble[13:31] herman Bergson: serious[13:31] herman Bergson: Hi Ciska:-)[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought can not be touched, how could it be material?[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: hello & sorry :([13:31] Ciska Riverstone accepted your inventory offer.[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...that is the odd thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: how to understand that....[13:32] herman Bergson: material things are visible...thoughts seem to be invisible for instance[13:32] herman Bergson: and another thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: we all can see the objects around us....[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): like love we can only touch the objective manifestations of it[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you cannot touch thoughts but you can prove that there is happening something in your brain[13:32] herman Bergson: but nobody can see my private thoughts[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh sure Siggi....[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: thank god..:P[13:33] herman Bergson: Dont worry...we'll get to that definitely[13:34] herman Bergson: But the question is ..more or less....is it Descartes or is it Spinoza :-)[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but is the brain only reacting to our minds?[13:34] herman Bergson: No Aristotle....the brain generates the mind....[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought must be the creator[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): or the brain must be the creator of mind[13:35] herman Bergson: The brain is just an interesting biological process....[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain is just a machine[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): brain[13:36] herman Bergson: that is a metafor Aristotle...[13:36] herman Bergson: what do you mean by it?[13:36] herman Bergson: The brain is a biological organism ...not a machine[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes the fuel is the mind[13:36] herman Bergson smiles[13:37] herman Bergson: Well..that will gonna be a debate Aristotle....for the future...[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, it is just a feeling I have[13:37] herman Bergson: for I 'll try to hold the thesis that the brain generates the mind.....or in other words...the mind is a feature of the brain[13:38] Mick Nerido: I agree the mind spings from the brain[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL, I am in opposition to that of course, but have no proof[13:38] herman Bergson: That is not a problem Aristotle....[13:39] herman Bergson: But I think your opposing view will be fundamentally put to the test in the coming lectures :-)[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I only seek proof that I am right or wrong[13:39] herman Bergson: But you knew that ...as I made my basic assumptions clear in the very first lecture of this project :-)[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...right or wrong….don't know whether that is the right way to approach the issue....[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, just traveling with you to the end :)[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): if someone offrs proof then I am able to refine my philosophy[13:41] herman Bergson: We know little ..and philosophically we are constant in debate with reality[13:41] herman Bergson: I think it is more a matter of plausability....[13:42] herman Bergson: and from that respect..productivity for scientific research for instance[13:42] Mick Nerido: Duality is dead, mind and brain are one?[13:42] herman Bergson: sssttttt Mick.....[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am merely a pirate collecting treasure[13:42] Ortwin Sveiss: but when we ourselves are real, how can we debate with something we´re part of?[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): who said duality is dead, the one who want it to be dead?[13:42] herman Bergson: .[13:43] herman Bergson: Ortwin....you mean ..the mind is evaluating the mind?[13:43] herman Bergson: Ultimate bellybutton staring???[13:43] Ortwin Sveiss: yes[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: *G*[13:43] herman Bergson: Well there is an answer to that question....[13:44] herman Bergson: A bit complicated..but I'll give it a try.....[13:45] herman Bergson: We have two things..... the real world around us...that is...the answer to the question what is....we call it the ontology....[13:45] herman Bergson: Hi Aya :-)[13:45] Aya Beaumont: hello professor. =)[13:46] Ortwin Sveiss: aha well with two parties a debate is possible[13:46] herman Bergson: no no...wait...[13:47] herman Bergson: the second thing we have is knowledge about what is....[13:47] herman Bergson: that is called the epistemology....[13:48] herman Bergson: The problem you refer to is....how can a personal mind have objective knowledge of THE MIND, because he only has its own mind[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the argument within is between our subjective selves and our objective selves[13:48] herman Bergson: exactly Aristotle....[13:49] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I say brain and mind or consciousness is the same thing as e.g. fire and heat or fire and light[13:49] Ortwin Sveiss: yes, and why should we separate ourselves or the knowlegde within us from ontology by introducing epistemology?[13:50] Aya Beaumont: I don't know why having an understanding of our own minds would be any more impossible than say, touching one's own hand.[13:50] herman Bergson: Fisrt Siggi.....there you touch the right button...we'll get to that in next lectures[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): before each of those things you meantine Siggi you must place the Sun for either one[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Aya.....[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): mentioned*[13:51] herman Bergson: I am not introducing epistemology.....that we can KNOW things is just a fact ...and we call it epistemology in philosophical circles[13:51] herman Bergson: but the whole issue is about subjective and objective....[13:52] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of the mind....[13:52] herman Bergson: that is..knowledge..independent of a particular observer...[13:52] Aya Beaumont: Whenever we do things, ourself is the one thing we always take into account. The mind, while obviously not able to have DETAILED information on how our minds work, we can learn the principles of it just fine.[13:52] herman Bergson: Thsi is getting complicated.....[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): surely modern science will invent a "mindscope"[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: of the brain yes- but not of the mind.[13:53] herman Bergson: There Ciska......!!!! that statement....[13:53] Aya Beaumont: Yes, of the MIND. =) The mind is a direct expression of our brain.[13:53] herman Bergson: Again a bookshelf long :-)[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: not only one[13:53] Aya Beaumont: There is, quite literally no difference between them.[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we better slow down....[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain being organic tissue creates the mind?[13:54] herman Bergson: Aya you tickle every nerve in me....but I can make them only fire in new lectures ^_^[13:54] Aya Beaumont giggles.[13:55] Aya Beaumont: Thank you, professor.[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....at least that I can say[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): that is just a magical as the mind creating the brain[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:55] Aya Beaumont: The brain is ALL that we are, and ALL that we are is the brain.[13:55] herman Bergson: So let's summarize...[13:55] herman Bergson: At least ortwin has a good point....[13:56] herman Bergson: how can a subjective mind have knowledge of THE MIND....[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): perhaps that is my problem, I have relegated the brain to be just a worker[13:56] Aya Beaumont: And it's pointless to talk about a mind unless you equate it to the functioning of the brain. =)[13:56] herman Bergson: I know...Aya...but it is the way you formulate your view which is a whole debate....[13:57] Aya Beaumont: Heh. Okay.[13:57] herman Bergson: which is a second issue we'll address in further lectures[13:57] herman Bergson: You were really good....![13:58] herman Bergson: Well you put a few things on my desk to come up about with good explanations :-)[13:58] herman Bergson: But don't worry..:-)[13:59] Aya Beaumont: I look forward to those lectures then. =)[13:59] herman Bergson: There are real good answers to our questions..[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: did you read Alva Noe Herman?[13:59] herman Bergson: No..not familiar with the name[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~noe/an_writing.html[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[14:00] herman Bergson: OK!!![14:00] herman Bergson: I love such input :-)[14:01] herman Bergson: You really were a very good class today.....thank you all for your participation.....[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to relax :-)[14:01] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor :)[14:01] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thank you[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you and good night[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): goodnight Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks herman[14:02] herman Bergson: You too ciska[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: bye Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: goodnight all[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am off, good night everyone[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Aristotle...[14:02] herman Bergson: take care[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: yes me too good night[14:10] Mick Nerido: Sorry i was busy[14:16] herman Bergson: You were excused Mick...:-)[14:17] Mick Nerido: I tried my best to be here it was a great subject today
The history of mankind in the last three hundred years has been punctuated by major upheavals in human thought that we call scientific revolutions - upheavals that have profoundly affected the way in which we view ourselves and our place in the cosmos. First there was the Copernican revolution - the notion that far from being the centre of the universe, our planet is a mere speck of dust revolving around the sun. Then there was the Darwinian revolution culminating in the view that we are not angels but merely hairless apes, as Huxley once pointed out. And third there was Freud's discovery of the "unconscious" - the idea that even though we claim to be in charge of our destinies, most of our behaviour is governed by a cauldron of motives and emotions which we are barely conscious of. Your conscious life, in short, is nothing but an elaborate post-hoc rationalisation of things you really do for other reasons. But now we are poised for the greatest revolution of all - understanding the human brain. This will surely be a turning point in the history of the human species for, unlike those earlier revolutions in science, this one is not about the outside world, not about cosmology or biology or physics, but about ourselves, about the very organ that made those earlier revolutions possible. These were not my words but those of Vilayanur S Ramachandran, one of the leading neuroscientists of today, at the Reith Lectures in 2003.Until very recently, most neurobiologists did not regard consciousness as a suitable topic for scientific investigation. This reluctance was based on certain philosophical mistakes, primarily the mistake of supposing that the subjectivity of consciousness made it beyond the reach of an objective science. Once we see that consciousness is a biological phenomenon like any other, then it can be investigated neurobiologically. Consciousness is entirely caused by neurobiological processes and is realized in brain structures. The essential trait of consciousness that we need to explain is unified qualitative subjectivity. Consciousness thus differs from other biological phenomena in that it has a subjective or first-person ontology, but this subjective ontology does not prevent us from having an epistemically objective science of consciousness. We need to overcome the philosophical tradition that treats the mental and the physical as two distinct metaphysical realms. These words of John Searle, one of the leading philosophers of mind today, direct our attention to the very first problem we have to tackle: THE MIND - BODY problem.We are all convinced, that we have a mind and a body, but the idea that the mind is just a feature of the body is not common knowledge.Many believe that the mind is something that resides inside of us, more or less separate from the body. The way we often talk about ourselves is in such a way as if the mind is almost independent of the body.This is what is called Dualism: mind and body regarded as two separate entities. or even as two different substances. This way of thinking about man is more than 300 years old and it was Descartes (1576 - 1650) who "invented" this philosophy.So, this will be our first hurdle to take: in line with what I have said before, I have to convince you philosophically, that dualism is fundamentally mistaken about the relation between body and mind.The Discussion[13:20] herman Bergson: I'll do that in my next lecture....thank you :-)[13:20] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free...[13:21] herman Bergson: Hi Gemma :-)[13:21] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hellihello Gemma :-))[13:21] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :-)[13:21] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:21] Kiki Walpanheim: hi gemma[13:22] Mick Nerido: I think the dualism of body and mind goes further back the Descartes...[13:22] herman Bergson: what are you thinking of Mick?[13:23] Mick Nerido: Like the soul and body in religion[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes indeed.....[13:23] herman Bergson: But that is actually a distinction between a soul and a body....[13:23] herman Bergson: Related to ideas of afterlife[13:24] herman Bergson: It was Descartes who made a distinction between thinking/the mind and the body...[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: where does the first person feeling come for me?[13:24] herman Bergson: from the brain Kiki, I would say[13:24] Kiki Walpanheim: why am i me not others?[13:25] Mick Nerido: Our conciousness seems so onrelated to our bodies ie. foot hands etc.[13:25] herman Bergson: well....when your brain is malfunctioning you CAN be others....schizofrenia is an example[13:25] Nitro Fireguard: ·What difference could we make between mind and counciousness[13:25] Mick Nerido: unrelated[13:25] Qwark Allen: mmm there they think others think for them[13:26] herman Bergson: In fact I make no difference between mind and consciousness...[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: if physical things dont change at all, it still makes sense if my 1st person view is others, not me[13:26] herman Bergson: two words referring to the same thing[13:26] Kiki Walpanheim: yet i am just me[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki.....this first person feature is a unique feature of the brain...[13:27] Kiki Walpanheim: thats the point when i cant find answer and tempt to resort to spirituality...yet i doubt that thing strongly too since they cant be observed empirically[13:28] herman Bergson: Main issue here is that there does not exist some special substance or material that we can call mind or consciousness[13:29] herman Bergson: There is nothing inside my body that is independent of it....[13:29] herman Bergson: Like some people think who believe to have a soul[13:30] Mick Nerido: All brain function is electro chemical including the so called conciousness?[13:31] Cocoa Moonkill: if consciousness is a property of body - is it related to humans only?[13:31] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that.....[13:31] herman Bergson: no Cocoa....[13:31] herman Bergson: Let me put it this way...[13:32] herman Bergson: The elctro chemical activity in the brain CAUSE the minde or consciousness[13:32] Kiki Walpanheim: and the materials composing my body keeps refreshing and changng, yet i still have the consistent first person feeling of beingme[13:32] herman Bergson: Ohhh...Kiki.....THAT is a serious philosophical debate...personal identity.....[13:33] herman Bergson: We certainly will get to that to[13:33] Kiki Walpanheim: oh[13:33] Cocoa Moonkill: then animals can have that "first person" feeling also?[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Cocoa...to some extend, yes.....[13:33] herman Bergson: not all but some do....[13:33] Mick Nerido: we are anamals with big brains[13:33] Kyra Neutron: so..you dont wake up every day..pick a personality cloth..put it on..and walk out the door to live...?[13:34] herman Bergson: When you look in the mirror you say…hey...that is ME....[13:34] Cocoa Moonkill: mmmm... I would not recognize my face on the street[13:34] herman Bergson: No Kyra..neither do you pick up a new brain every day :-)[13:34] Kiki Walpanheim: some low level animals might not; thinking about soil worms which live as two worms when you cut it to two parts[13:34] Kyra Neutron: "consistent me"[13:35] Cocoa Moonkill: it is completely "inner" feeling[13:35] Kyra Neutron: who can call itself "consistent"?[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): but little children do not recognize themselves in the mirror?[13:35] herman Bergson: Well the mirror test is regarded as a proof of a sense of personal identity[13:35] herman Bergson: They do pretty fast Siggi.....[13:36] herman Bergson: Dont know exactly when...but maybe even after 6 months or less even[13:36] Kiki Walpanheim: the 1st person feelings of consciousness is kinda ..hmm...confusing to me...maybe that is just the way things are..[13:37] herman Bergson: But to get back to personal identity.....some animals like elephants and chimps recognize themselves in a mirror....[13:37] Kyra Neutron: idk...if you can watch yourself in the mirror...who is who ? kinda messy[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Kiki....that is how the brain works...[13:38] herman Bergson: .[13:38] herman Bergson: You mean you dont recognize yourself in the mirror Kyra?[13:38] Kyra Neutron: actually no :)[13:38] herman Bergson frowns[13:39] Kyra Neutron: and worms can wear shoes[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): better try a new mirror[13:39] Kyra Neutron: so..ky shall be a worm[13:39] Kyra Neutron: what a lag..[13:39] Qwark Allen: had a shower to[13:39] herman Bergson: yes..never been that bad for me...this lag[13:39] Qwark Allen: when i got home had a nap[13:40] Qwark Allen: ehheh sry[13:40] herman Bergson smiles at Qwark[13:40] Kiki Walpanheim: maybe if i don have consciousness/1st person feeling any more, i am no different than stones/plants,then i might not exist no more ...[13:40] herman Bergson: You would be in coma then Kiki[13:41] Mick Nerido: I sometimes don't recognize myself in a reflection if I am surprised by it, like in a window[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: i think therefore i am..lol[13:41] Kiki Walpanheim: nods....but perhaps the consciousness is only small part of brain. the determinal part is the same as primates...its those primitives that define us...i dunno][13:43] herman Bergson: Well....I discussed in previous lectures our basic emotions and the fact that the idea that we are rational and by ratio controlled beings is a bit of a mistake[13:43] Kiki Walpanheim: oh[13:43] herman Bergson: to some extend we control our actions by our ratio...[13:43] Cocoa Moonkill: mmm... may be we have some "symbols" that our brain uses to designate us as "I"[13:43] herman Bergson: but that is just a part of our consciousness[13:44] herman Bergson: Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness.[13:44] Mick Nerido: Is there an evolutionary advantage to the "I" consciousness?[13:44] herman Bergson: Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamlesssleep - and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma or otherwise become "unconscious."[13:44] herman Bergson: .[13:45] Kiki Walpanheim: nods[13:45] herman Bergson: .[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Mick.....I would say....look around and how we survive and live a social life...[13:46] herman Bergson: An advantage????[13:46] herman Bergson: SOme might even say that it is a danger for our planet and our survival[13:47] herman Bergson: It is just how the brain works....[13:47] Mick Nerido: We are a pack animal...[13:47] Kyra Neutron: shakes her head..longs for the parfumed punk bee..that never works..what a lively dreamy planet...[13:47] Kiki Walpanheim: to help to rationalize and guide your primitive to be more adaptive?[13:47] herman Bergson: One advantage is for instance that we can cure the sick......animals just get ill and die[13:48] Qwark Allen: we can cure them to[13:48] herman Bergson: yes Qwark, they just cant cure themselves like a human being can[13:49] Kyra Neutron: weird[13:49] Kyra Neutron: that people started to cure themselves[13:49] Qwark Allen: we wouldn`t be here, having this class, if we weren't conscious[13:49] Kyra Neutron: by watching the nature healing itself..[13:49] herman Bergson: Our brain makes us probably the most adaptive organisms on this planet[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: but the consciousness, rational brain part seems to be th only art nder our contol[13:49] Qwark Allen: that is why we are so sucessfull here[13:49] Kiki Walpanheim: other parts of body won listen to us[13:50] Qwark Allen: probably not even that one[13:50] Nitro Fireguard: why should we make a difference between the counsciousness of the world and the "I" consciousness?[13:50] herman Bergson: yes Kiki...the idea that we have absolute control over ourselves seems to me to be a mistake....[13:50] Mick Nerido: The placebo effect...[13:50] Kiki Walpanheim: like ur stomach, intesine wont listen to u how thy work[13:51] Nitro Fireguard: I personally include myself in the whole Universe *lol*[13:51] Qwark Allen: +/-[13:51] herman Bergson: I don't see a difference between the two Nitro[13:51] herman Bergson: .[13:51] Nitro Fireguard: yes I agree with that :)[13:52] herman Bergson: Ok...next lecture I'll try to show you that the Cartesian dualism has been a historic mistake...[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: but consciousness is also biological, so there is o free wil right ok another big question i philo;p[13:52] Kiki Walpanheim: TY professor[13:52] Qwark Allen: there is no free will[13:53] herman Bergson: We'll get to that Qwark.....[13:53] Qwark Allen: we have been allready there a litle herman[13:53] herman Bergson: We have a long road ahead of us... :-)[13:53] Qwark Allen: that is nice[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:53] Qwark Allen: was really interesting as usual herman[13:53] Qwark Allen: missed classes for sure[13:53] herman Bergson: Thank you Qwark....[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I sorry..[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes i am I'm Sorry! missing tuesdays[[13:54] Mick Nerido: Thanks great class![13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your creative participation....[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and class!! see u soon:-) i must go[13:54] herman Bergson: class dismissed :-)[13:54] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!![13:54] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman :-)[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:54] Cocoa Moonkill: thank you for the lecture[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone :)[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: see you later[13:54] Kiki Walpanheim: ty[13:54] herman Bergson: Bye Ciska[13:55] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you and bye till next time[13:55] Nitro Fireguard: Thank you so much[13:55] Nitro Fireguard: see you next time[13:55] herman Bergson: My pleasure Nitro[13:55] Nitro Fireguard smiles[13:55] herman Bergson: You're always welcome[13:55] Nitro Fireguard: Bye :)[13:55] Kyra Neutron: by goldie..[13:56] Cocoa Moonkill: goodbye[13:57] Kyra Neutron: it could be taken..and no copy...idk if you need this one back[13:57] herman Bergson: no no.... :-)[13:57] herman Bergson: it is my own work[13:58] Kyra Neutron: oks :)[13:58] Kyra Neutron: so i has a naked picture of hermans avi in invo[13:58] Kyra Neutron: lovely[13:58] Kyra Neutron: good night gentlemen[13:58] herman Bergson smiles[13:58] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor[13:59] herman Bergson: yw Mick :-)[14:01] herman Bergson: Hi Jerome[14:02] Jerome Ronzales: Hi herman![14:02] herman Bergson: class is over...unfortunately[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: yep, i thought so[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: the fact that i keep trying splitting my self in several others is kind of difficult…[14:04] Jerome Ronzales: althought its kinda entertaining..[14:04] Jerome Ronzales: know what i mean?[14:06] herman Bergson: yes I know....too many options :-)
When I started the series of lectures on basic emotions, interpreted from an evolutionary biological perspective, I said in lecture 306:"It is a mistake, but it is a generally accepted view through history: the human being controls himself by use of his ratio, his actions are based on reasonable considerations, and his behavior is based on knowledge, analysis and synthesis."The basic emotions show that our behavior is controlled by a lot more than our overestimated rationality.As I told you before, we are now in the frontline of neurobiological developments and the philosophical discourse related to those events.Ludwig John (someone who attended our class) directed my attention to a german URL, which was an interview with Alexander Braidt on his book "Bewußtsein. Der Abgrund zwischen Mensch und Tier" (Consciousness: the Abyss between man and animal)The subtitle is exciting in the sense that it refers exactly to what my next lectures will be about:Zur unverstandenen Sonderstellung des menschlichen Gehirns. Eine Streitschrift zum Menschenbild der jüngeren Hirnforschung bei Roth, Singer und Co.Translation: About the misunderstood special position of the human brain. A pamphlet against the concept of man in recent brain research by Roth, Singer and Co.I could not find further information on Alexander Braidt except that he is the author of the book, I mentioned. Interesting however is, that he is one who questions the neuroscientists.And that is exactly what I also was planning to do. In an interview Alexander Braidt said, in line with what I already said in lecture 306, but he adds a few interesting ideas:he reacts to the mistake I mentioned earlier: the idea that the human being with his rationality should be regarded as almost positioned above nature, but also to the views of the neuroscientists on man."So there are good reasons to warn against a special position of man. Only the established brain research pours in this case the baby out with the bath water: that man is from the animal kingdom, does not exclude absolutely that evolution has brought with it a radically new quality, which transcends pure biology. Already the formation of the first molecular chains of elementary atoms introduced radically new properties, which transcended the the purely physical.Take for example atoms that organize "all of a sudden" in an evolutionary process into H2O/water. And a special arrangement and organization of certain long chain molecules into a DNA brought forth revolutionary features like replication and metabolism , which were considered impossible of the individual molecules. Inorganic materials thence developed the radical new feature of life.With some justification, one could say that the current brain research tries to cover up its long-term failure regarding the peculiar phenomenon of consciousness and with it the special position of mankind;it degrades his ego and his so-called free will to pure illusion and consciousness to an epiphenomenon. Brain research has so far failed to discriminate between specific contents of consciousness of perception, attention (e.g. a tree, dog, etc.) and the pure, general condition of awareness."Braidt argues in fact that like atoms, that organized into molecules, these molecules, that constitute our braincells, have organized into something that transcends pure biology: consciousness.There still is so much to say now, but we'll have to address that in new lectures, but what is for sure: our battle between the philosopher and the brain has begun.source:http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34648/1.html
The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you... :-)[13:26] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark..the floor is yours ^_^[13:27] Doodus Moose: we can almost draw a line from atoms to organic molecules, but from molecules to consciousness?????[13:27] Mick Nerido: It is quite amazing that matter can be able to evolve into conscious life forms[13:27] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Doodus...that is the fascinating philosophical problem we gonna tackle :-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and kind of amazing[13:28] Kyra Neutron: so...none of you believes that..first..there as conciousness[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:28] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....[13:28] herman Bergson: mattter into consciousness...we have no clue at all how to understand that[13:28] Kyra Neutron: you truly can place yourself coming from inorganic mollecules?P[13:29] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:29] Doodus Moose: organic molecules exhibit (as we say in computers) determinism - but consciousness does not[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra I see no problem there...[13:29] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:29] Kyra Neutron: wood is wood[13:29] Mick Nerido: we are organic[13:29] Kyra Neutron: yes..and[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what hocus pocus[13:30] Kyra Neutron: created organic?[13:30] herman Bergson: what we cant understand doesn't mean that it yet happened...and in evolution ..it happened[13:30] Kyra Neutron: how the protons and quarks turned into this dna and rna?[13:30] Mick Nerido: We are carbon based life forms[13:30] Bejiita Imako: also another thing[13:30] Bejiita Imako: plants are also alive but are they conscious[13:30] Bejiita Imako: a tree or a flower[13:31] Bejiita Imako: i dont think so[13:31] Kyra Neutron: yes bejita[13:31] Kyra Neutron: they are part of the consiousness too[13:31] Bejiita Imako: plants[13:31] Kyra Neutron: and they can understand death[13:31] herman Bergson: HOLD ON![13:31] Kyra Neutron: fear[13:31] Kyra Neutron: love[13:31] Kyra Neutron: but[13:31] Kyra Neutron: still[13:31] Kyra Neutron: as we do[13:31] herman Bergson: Hold on....![13:31] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:31] Mick Nerido: Plants have light and gravity sensing tropisms[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hmm cause they seem to feel well when the environment is right[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but they have no brain, seems just a bunch of independent cells[13:32] Kyra Neutron: a good point[13:32] Kyra Neutron: gravity[13:32] Bejiita Imako: dont know[13:32] herman Bergson: It will be our goal to understand the concept of consciousness in the nexrt lectures...[13:32] Kyra Neutron: we are a bunch of[13:32] Kyra Neutron: independent cells either[13:32] Kyra Neutron: you and me[13:32] Kyra Neutron: is no better than a cucumber[13:32] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:33] herman Bergson: Hold on agian...:-)[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but for ex a tree have no such thing as a brain have no mind[13:33] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel?[13:33] Kyra Neutron: we are all part of this great breathing gravity[13:33] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:33] Mick Nerido: That we are conscious is self evident how is the question[13:33] herman Bergson: What is the focus of this discussion..what are we debating?[13:33] Bejiita Imako: in some way i think it can[13:33] Kyra Neutron: with the independent cells[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but is it aware of its surroundings[13:33] Kyra Neutron: ah yes[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sorry herman[13:34] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is that the neuroscientists have no clue what consciousness is...[13:34] Kyra Neutron: but a crystal remains as a crystal..and..there is still not a good explanation for the dna ...entereing the scene[13:34] Mick Nerido: The more complex the brain the more it will be aware and possibly conscious[13:34] herman Bergson: and we have to figure out WHAT it is...[13:35] herman Bergson: philosophically :-)[13:35] Kyra Neutron: so first..conciousness...next..[13:35] Kyra Neutron: shadows[13:35] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:35] Doodus Moose: [13:35] herman Bergson: Might be true Kyra...[13:36] herman Bergson: But even if w edont understand consciousness....[13:36] herman Bergson: I'd like to explain to you WHY we dont understand it....[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes pls[13:37] herman Bergson: In the interview was anther remarkable question....[13:37] herman Bergson: Was something like....[13:38] herman Bergson: What politicla goals are persued by this neurobiological approach of man?[13:38] herman Bergson: Everyone is inclined to beleiv ethat science is science....not that science is politics...[13:39] Mick Nerido: I don't think we yet have words for what conciousness is...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: ...we don't need english letters to know it[13:39] herman Bergson: We gonna work n that Mick...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: close your eyes..and see...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:39] Bejiita Imako: to be aware of yourself and your surroundings i d say[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and to be able to feel[13:40] herman Bergson: .[13:40] Mick Nerido: But we need a language for true communication about it[13:40] Kyra Neutron: idk[13:40] Kyra Neutron: a synestesic can find the correct words for it?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: yeti believe they see it easier...[13:41] herman Bergson: Well Mick..that is was Paula Churchland claims...in het book Neurophilosophy[13:41] Kyra Neutron: lowers eyes...sorry herman..i stay silent :p[13:42] herman Bergson: Like in the Middle Ages we had a language which explained nature using terms of whitchcraft and magic...[13:43] Mick Nerido: Naming a thing makes it more real and understandable[13:43] herman Bergson: today...we don't use these terms at all anymore...we use the language of physics[13:43] Kyra Neutron: a "thing"[13:43] Kyra Neutron: that you can touch[13:43] Kyra Neutron: smell[13:43] Kyra Neutron: see[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hear[13:43] Kyra Neutron: makes it easire to definable by mind[13:43] herman Bergson: yes. Kyra...[13:44] herman Bergson: Magic as explanaion has just ceased to exist...like witches[13:44] Kyra Neutron: a name which doesnt have any connection via our senses...[13:45] Bejiita Imako: magic by definition is to defy all laws of nature[13:45] Bejiita Imako: wich is impossible to do[13:45] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it was pleasure to mess the class again[13:45] Kyra Neutron: hopefully see you next time[13:45] Kyra Neutron: nite nite[13:45] herman Bergson smiles at Kyra[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu Kyra[13:46] herman Bergson: Ok...I guess you wait for the nexr round..:-)[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:46] herman Bergson: who will win...the philosopher or the neuroscientist..?[13:46] herman Bergson: If I have to bet....???[13:47] herman Bergson: I'd put my money on herman Bersgon ^_^[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] herman Bergson: OK...[13:48] herman Bergson: It is up to me to win my own bet then ^_^[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:48] Doodus Moose: (is curious about the odds in the bet)[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman[13:49] herman Bergson: Nice thought Doodus....^_^[13:49] Mick Nerido: So you bet on the philosopher?[13:49] herman Bergson: I do Mick![13:49] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman, till next class, bye all..:)[13:49] Mick Nerido: Me too[13:50] Doodus Moose: bye Zinzi[13:50] Bejiita Imako: interesting for sure[13:50] Doodus Moose: bye all!!!!!![13:50] Mick Nerido: Thanks[13:50] herman Bergson: Thank you Zinzi..:-)[13:50] Bejiita Imako: bye Doodus[13:50] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks for this last minute[13:50] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss class[13:50] Mick Nerido: , your best lecture to date imo[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman...it was very interersting;)))[13:50] Bejiita Imako: I think both have right but in their own ways but who have the most right[13:50] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] herman Bergson: We'll see Bejiita...we'll see :-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: but raw science is maybee not the best thing always[13:51] Bejiita Imako: a combination of both things make best I think[13:51] Bejiita Imako: science and philosophy[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cause both have right in their special ways i think[13:52] herman Bergson: Betrand Russell said that when we can answer a question...the question moves from philosophy to science...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes science is raw facts about what is proven[13:53] herman Bergson: yes...as far as we understand reality now...[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: yes its in a permanent flow[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: and the speed grows.[13:55] herman Bergson: We just appraoch reality forma pragmatic point of view...[13:55] herman Bergson: science is that what works...[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: well what else can we do ;)[13:55] herman Bergson: ok...true[13:55] herman Bergson: we need to survive...[13:55] herman Bergson: so to be pragmatic is maybe the best strategy[13:56] herman Bergson: interesting thought...:-)[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: maybe its the only one[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:56] herman Bergson: especially from an evolutionary point of view[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: anyway have a good evening folks[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: cu thursday[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu ㋡[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
The reason that I paid a lot of attention to neurobiological and evolutionary facts and theories about the brain, is a logical consequence of my first premise:There is nothing else in this world but matter. We'll not discuss the nature of matter now, whether atoms are meant , even smaller particles or molecules.But the basic implication is, that I assume that there does not exist some kind of non-material substance in our universe.Yet a lot of people have a strong belief, that exactly that stuff DOES exist. To elucidate the meaning of this fact, I discussed with you our Supersense and how the brain is inclined to jump to quick conclusions.Important source of information was the book of Bruce Hood, "Supersense: Why we believe in the unbelievable" , New York 2009.The next step was to show a number of tricks the brain can play, of which a number were regarded as supernatural phenomena and powers. Main source of information here was the book by Lone Frank, "Den femte revolution: Fortaellingerfra hjernens tidsalder", Kopenhagen 2007.I may be able to understand five languages, but not Danish ^_^ … I used a Dutch translation. English titles by Lone Frank are "Mindfield: How Brain Science is Changing Our World " (Apr 1, 2009). My guess is that this is the translation of the title of 2007 and "The Neurotourist: Postcards from the Edge of Brain Science "(Jul 16, 2011)A third step was to focus on the evolution of the brain. Among other sourcesI used the book by Mark Nelissen, "De Brein Machine". Tielt (2008). (The Brain Machine)I have no knowledge of an English translation of this Dutch book, or actually Flemish book.During this whole exercise, which covered about a 1000 pages of literature, the concepts of consciousness and the Self were mentioned, but deliberately not fathomed.I think, that by now the picture of the brain, based on the premise that the brain is the mind, has been worked on long enough for the time being.We really need to make the philosophical turn and ask ourselves… What do these neurobiologists and Evolutionary psychologists mean? What can be seen on fMRI scan… consciousness in action perhaps?How do we have to interpret the findings of neurobiology? They bring us knowledge, definitely, but knowledge of what? Firing neurons, yes, but is that consciousness?Tons of questions….. and one question I got in an e-mail from a friend. It was exactly the question of which I thought: YES, now the time has come to make the philosophical turn and this is really the best starting point.My friend asked me the following question:"Ok then...now for my question...Is the soul considered to be a part of the brain?"My answer was thus:Yes we have a brain and yes we have a mind and yes my basic quest is into the analysis of the relation between that brain and that mind. There definitely is a causal relation between the two, for no brain means no mind. Some people bring in a third player in this game: the soul. Strictly speaking the brain might be the mind, but the mind can't be the soul. In particular because some people believe, that the soul continues to exist when the mind is already gone. It happened that the Pope himself has answered this question last week, when a mother asked him , if the soul of her son, who is 40 years in coma now, is still in his body, or already gone elsewhere. According to the Pope the soul was still in the body. I wonder why and I wonder how the Pope knows this. The soul has nothing to do with our morality, because this implies that it interacts with our brain/mind. I can believe that there is an interaction of some sort between brain and mind, which shapes our behavior and actions, but I really have no idea how a soul would accomplish that.The existence of a mind and a body already has burden us for centuries with dualism and weird ideas about how they interact. To add a soul to the team makes thing only less understandable. And like the razor of Ockham goes: "Entia non sunt praeter necessitatem multiplicanda." which means "One should not unnecessarily multiply entities (postulated objects in a hypothesis)".So I'll put heart and soul into the next chapter of our quest: The Philosophy of Mind.The Discussion[13:28] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and then take them out[13:28] herman Bergson: take out who..my heart and soul??? :-)[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yep[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:29] herman Bergson: Then you really must have missed some lectures Gemma..[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): well you did not say "my heart and soul[13:30] herman Bergson: for all previous lectures were what establish our heart and soul....the emotions :-)[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): you said put heart and soul[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and i don't think you will do that[13:30] Mick Nerido: Matter and energy are the same thing in our universe...[13:30] herman Bergson: my last statement was to tease you ^_^[13:30] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:30] herman Bergson: and it worked :-)))[13:31] Bejiita Imako: heheh[13:31] herman Bergson: That is exactly what we not gonna discuss Mick..:-)[13:31] Doodus Moose: modern christianity loosely describes the soul as the "i want, i think, i feel" - those animalistic tendencies within the mind[13:31] Bejiita Imako: well energy can transform into matter close to the speed of light like in the LHC, there u see the effect clearly[13:32] Bejiita Imako: energy = masless matter = mass and the Higgs particle is making the difference its supposed[13:32] Doodus Moose: we substitute "fleshly" for animalistic[13:32] herman Bergson: If the physicists plz would be so kind to rest their case..:-)[13:32] Mick Nerido: I mean another dualism in our world[13:32] Bejiita Imako: so substance and no substance in general might be 2 sides of same coin[13:33] herman Bergson: Let's get back to Doodus remark...[13:33] herman Bergson: How the soul is descibed isn't that important…its existence is..[13:34] Mick Nerido: I think it grew out of primitive mans explanation of how living is different than inanimate things[13:35] Bejiita Imako: as i see it the soul is "something" that is "me" and the body is just some container[13:35] herman Bergson: You remark , Mick brings us back to our lectures on supersense...[13:35] Bejiita Imako: the physical me[13:36] herman Bergson: Let's stick to Mick's remark…[13:36] Mick Nerido: I think soul also means breath[13:36] herman Bergson: Did you ever talked to an inanimate object, Mick...?[13:36] Mick Nerido: only when I drink too much[13:37] herman Bergson: Your malfuntionin car or computer?[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:37] Zinzi Serevi: lol[13:37] Bejiita Imako: I swear and bang machines that refuse to operate[13:37] Bejiita Imako: heheh[13:37] Bejiita Imako: bad patience[13:37] herman Bergson: That is what I mean Bejiiita...[13:37] herman Bergson: Our brain is easily inclined to put a soul in such machines[13:38] herman Bergson: WAIT...!!!![13:38] herman Bergson: Read this!!!![13:38] Bejiita Imako: yes when the damn junkpile refuse to work and im in a hurry sometimes it feels like its trying to make me angry at will[13:38] herman Bergson: Bejiita...just be silent…plz[13:38] herman Bergson: your words...![13:38] herman Bergson: as i see it the soul is "something" that is "me" and the body is just some container[13:39] herman Bergson: what you say there is exactly what Descartes has put in our minds...[13:39] herman Bergson: a perfect example of dualism[13:39] Bejiita Imako: yes sort of as i've heard about how it is defined[13:39] Mick Nerido: That is what the Catholic church says also[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes..[13:40] herman Bergson: the idea that there is on the one hand a body...the vehicle...and on the otherhand a......well...[13:40] herman Bergson: name it....[13:40] herman Bergson: a mind..[13:40] Mick Nerido: We cannot disprove the soul exists[13:40] herman Bergson: a soul..???[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and sometimed u might believe there is a bad soul in some machines[13:41] Bejiita Imako: for ex today i played bowling and had a really good series, got over 200[13:41] herman Bergson: oh yes...it is so deeply embedded in our minds..this way of thinking[13:41] Bejiita Imako: during that series whenever i hit a stike 3 times in a row the machine didn't even start but shut itself of[13:41] Bejiita Imako: like it was trying to disrupt my good game'[13:41] herman Bergson: Bejiita...I really begin to worry about you ^_^[13:41] Mick Nerido: Its like when you can be outside you body watching yourself[13:41] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:42] Bejiita Imako: but u gotta wonder[13:42] Bejiita Imako: well then they are really bad servicing the things too so can be that as well[13:42] Bejiita Imako: they are lazy theones running the centre[13:42] Zinzi Serevi: what is the connection with the soul?[13:42] herman Bergson: simple Zinzi....[13:43] herman Bergson: there is no soul :-)[13:43] Zinzi Serevi: i am simple[13:43] Zinzi Serevi: that i already knew[13:43] Mick Nerido: What about soul music?[13:43] Zinzi Serevi: lol[13:43] Bejiita Imako: hhahaha yes i like that[13:43] Doodus Moose: [13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:43] Bejiita Imako: lol[13:43] herman Bergson: Mick....you should read that correctly....[13:44] herman Bergson: soul music means So You Like Music[13:44] Bejiita Imako: hmm an acronym u mean[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ?[13:44] Mick Nerido: ????[13:44] Bejiita Imako: never thought of that[13:45] Doodus Moose: [13:45] herman Bergson grins[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:45] Zinzi Serevi: hahaha[13:45] Bejiita Imako: but yes its good stuff[13:45] herman Bergson: Just came to my mind..:-)[13:45] Bejiita Imako: soft[13:45] Mick Nerido: Soul like love is hard to explain[13:46] herman Bergson: That is very nice Mick..but neither scientific or philosophical...that is the point...[13:46] herman Bergson: we need hard evidence...[13:47] herman Bergson: Bejiita formulated traditional dualism perfectly...[13:47] Mick Nerido: I guess you are not my soul mate[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:47] Ciska Riverstone: *g*[13:48] herman Bergson: Probaly not Mick, I am really sorry :-)[13:48] Mick Nerido: lol[13:48] herman Bergson: To be honest to you all...I have no soul at all:-)[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): we know[13:48] Doodus Moose: you haven't given it to..... someone.[13:48] herman Bergson smiles at Gemma[13:48] LuckyXIII Luke: well there is no evidence that you do not have one....[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: lol[13:49] herman Bergson: WOW..Thank you Lucky!!![13:49] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): he believes he does not like those others believe they do[13:49] herman Bergson: That definitely proofs I have one, doenst it..lol[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:49] LuckyXIII Luke: no it does not[13:49] LuckyXIII Luke: either[13:49] LuckyXIII Luke: I am sorry[13:49] herman Bergson grins[13:49] LuckyXIII Luke: but it can give you some hope[13:50] herman Bergson: I was just teasing you Lucky[13:50] LuckyXIII Luke: ah yes ;) and I you[13:50] herman Bergson: great[13:50] LuckyXIII Luke: :)[13:50] Mick Nerido: Why do so many want there to be a soul?[13:50] herman Bergson: I have no clue...[13:50] herman Bergson: or yes..[13:50] herman Bergson: afterlife...[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: maybe cause we summen up among soul what we feel and cannot explain[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: so when the mystery of brain is solved the concept soul gets different.[13:51] herman Bergson: no..the soul is the way to an afterlife[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:51] herman Bergson: the body may die but the soul lives on...[13:52] LuckyXIII Luke: well ....in the hebrew language[13:52] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): the soul is a sort of backup ?[13:52] LuckyXIII Luke: soul means the "whole" human[13:52] herman Bergson: It is our way to understand and accept death[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: *g* thats nice siggi[13:52] LuckyXIII Luke: not only like the old greeks "soul"[13:52] LuckyXIII Luke: understood ...in a an dualistic way...[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Siggi...got mine backuped on a DVD :-)[13:53] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): yes like this[13:53] Mick Nerido: Gotto go nice lecture bye[13:53] Doodus Moose: bye Mick[13:53] Zinzi Serevi: bye Mick[13:53] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: bye mick[13:53] Bejiita Imako: cu Mick[13:54] herman Bergson: Well...time to dismiss class too...[13:54] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): almost time to go[13:54] herman Bergson: A nice discussion..[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman[13:54] Bejiita Imako: yes interesting subjects as always[13:54] herman Bergson: Shows that we have got a lot of work to do[13:54] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): yes thank you[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: is yes bejiita[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: have a good time everyone - bye[13:54] Bejiita Imako: now i need some action so i can tamper with the evil machines at work tomorrow[13:55] Bejiita Imako: then its friday and my best friend comes over so they will not get to ruin my day[13:55] Bejiita Imako: heheh[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: bye ciska[13:55] herman Bergson: Enjoy Bejiita and have fun[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:55] LuckyXIII Luke: thank you Herman for all[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon agaun all ㋡[13:55] Bejiita Imako: \o/[13:55] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo![13:55] Bejiita Imako: / \[13:56] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): bye and good night[[13:56] LuckyXIII Luke: good night all[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye all of you[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman[13:56] Doodus Moose: Ray Kurzweil ( a futurist ) claims that our brains will not be capable of keeping up with the future faster pace of progress[13:56] Doodus Moose: ...unless we have some sort of implant in our brain to help us out .[13:57] Doodus Moose: take care everybody - till next week[13:57] herman Bergson: that is a bit of a peculiar hypothesis... Doodus[13:57] herman Bergson: Because it is our brain that creates that future...[13:58] Doodus Moose: many brains are creating your future right now - and you have only 1 brain to process all their work[13:58] herman Bergson: we will always have dumb and smart people Doodus...[13:58] Doodus Moose: :-)[13:59] herman Bergson: like society had laborers and rulers[13:59] Doodus Moose: i've found i've had to increasingly specialize due to the amount of developments in my fields[13:59] herman Bergson: the proletarians and the capitalists..[14:00] Doodus Moose: there are whole topics i must ignore to feed others[14:00] herman Bergson: the haves and have-nots[14:00] Doodus Moose: indeed, philosophy is displacing something else [14:00] Doodus Moose: i seem to be reaching a limit of sorts[14:01] Doodus Moose: well - i'll let you loose to enjoy your evening.[14:01] herman Bergson: Philosophers always displace things[14:01] Doodus Moose: anyway - i'll let you go now[14:02] herman Bergson: BE WELL DOODUS[14:02] Doodus Moose: indeed, you too, sir[14:02] Doodus Moose: (buy gold)
Of course we could spend hours debating the exact definitions of the emotions we discuss here. We won't do that and just follow what distinctions are found in scientific literature.We used a distinction between basic emotions and complex emotions, or in other terms, primary and secondary emotions. So far we have scrutinized the primary emotions.We looked at them through our Darwinistic glasses. Let's check out what we see through these glasses , when we look at the secondary emotions.Although we are no definition freaks here, there can be made some clear distinctions between primary and secondary or social emotions.A first typical difference between the two is, that primary emotions can be experienced individually. I can experience fear, grief or joy all on my own, while secondary emotions need other people, a social context.We are talking here about the emotions shame, guilt and pride.A second difference between the two is, that the primary emotions are controlled by the evolutionary older parts of the brain like the amygdala and the limbic system.The complex emotions mainly reside in the neocortex - the part of the brain which is responsible for our cognitive functions - and more precisely in the prefrontal lobe.A third difference - and some regard it as the most important one - is that the social emotions are always related to what in philosophy and psychology is called the "Self".The concept of the Self or Personal Identity is a difficult philosophical subject and we'll save it for later, but it is clear that our awareness of an inner Self requires highly developed cognitive capabilities, like for instance self-reflection.Sometimes it is suggested that in every complex emotion at least one basic emotion is present, like you can experience joy when you feel proud, or fear when you feel guilty.There may be cultural influences in basic emotions, of complex emotions it is clear that they are highly influenced by culture.It is difficult to draw clear demarcation lines between basic and complex emotions like there is a fluent transition from basic almost physical disgust to moral disgust, which is mainly culturally determined.We'll focus in the next couple of lectures on the complex emotions Shame, Guilt and Pride, which Michael Lewis (1937 - …) called "self aware emotions". They require self-reflection.Michael Lewis's research has focused on normal and deviant emotional and intellectual development. Through his pioneering efforts in both theory and measurement, he has been one of the leaders in the study of emotional development.While the causes of basic emotions ( e.g. fear for snakes and spiders) may provoke identical reactions in most people, social emotions work quite differently.I could feel shame, when someone points at the fact that I "forgot" to inform the income tax about some earnings, while another would feel proud about his getting away with it.There is another peculiar relation: the relation between secondary or social emotions with obedience. What does that mean?No society without rules. If we wouldn't follow rules our social world would be a complete chaos. Maybe a kind of Hobbesian world.To solve the problem of social control evolution has developed a special mechanism. Some call it conscience. We constantly evaluate our behavior and the result of this permanent evaluation are the feelings of shame, guilt and pride. And this is the advantage of evolution of social emotions: we all have an inner police officer. He watches over our behavior.The rules and standards are not biologically inherited, but passed on by parents, educators, teachers and so on. It is cultural transmission, but our brain uses them for constant quality surveillance of our actions.This makes me think….. in an evolutionary sense our basic emotions have served survival of the organisms for millions of year,while our social emotions, which are closely related with our morality and mainly reside in the prefrontal lobe have an evolutionary much shorter history.Is this pointing at an explanation why morality is not 100% integrated in the system of the species, like fear?And that morality sometimes only looks like a thin layer of varnish that is easily broken, so that we are capable to atrocities, genocides, murder, crime and the like? Are we just a fist step in evolution?The discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you...[13:24] herman Bergson: You have the floor..[13:24] herman Bergson: Feel free if you have any question or remark[13:25] Doodus Moose: guilt experiences are written deeply within the brain....[13:25] Doodus Moose: but it seems there is not a similar mechanism for "forgiveness"[13:25] Doodus Moose: therefore guilt "accumulates"?[13:25] herman Bergson: INteresting Doodus.....[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): the basic emotion don't change much..while the morality changes a lot during the ages[13:26] herman Bergson: these secondary emotions are closely linked to primary emotions....[13:26] Clerisse Beeswing: sounds like selfish acts should accumulate too[13:26] Doodus Moose: perhaps if you feel guilty from being selfish[13:26] herman Bergson: a thing as forgiveness requires a high involvement of our cognitive powers....it is not an emotion...[13:27] herman Bergson: in guilt there always is an element of fear....[13:27] Bejiita Imako: aaa that can be true[13:27] herman Bergson: The fear to be judged by the group on your actions...[13:27] Bejiita Imako: like " what have i done now ill get shit for this!"[13:28] herman Bergson: But forgiveness is something completely different...[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hmm[13:28] herman Bergson: But on the other hand..it also is an essential feeling to keep society going....[13:29] Clerisse Beeswing: when as children to we develop that fear..what age?[13:29] Doodus Moose: i'm thinking about "self forgiveness" i guess - some manner to make the guilty memories less "well-written"[13:29] Bejiita Imako: to forgive is to accept what the one feeling guilty have done and say its ok sort of[13:29] herman Bergson: But I see no link with basic emotions...[13:29] herman Bergson: yes...a product of our prefrontal lobe then :-)[13:29] herman Bergson: You are sentenced to prison for three years...[13:30] herman Bergson: after that you are accepted as a normal member of the group again...(which you arent of xcourse)...[13:30] herman Bergson: Serving the sentence would be the forgiveness of the group...[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hi Jeroen[13:31] Jeroen Foss: :-)[13:31] Jeroen Foss: hello[13:31] Doodus Moose: forgiveness of the group - but the offender still has to live with what he's done[13:31] herman Bergson: I think here you see a fundamental difference between basic emotions developed in evolution and really cerebral social solutions to situations[13:32] herman Bergson: Something you don't encounter among social animals...forgiveness...[13:32] herman Bergson: That is what I mean Doodus....the perpetrator has to live with its stigma..[13:34] herman Bergson: I think that this makes clear that with a phenomenon of forgiveness we have left the real of evolutionary qualities of the homo sapiens...[13:34] herman Bergson: And entered the realm of ethics[13:35] Mick Nerido: Does shame guilt and pride get stronger in more in some societies than others[13:35] herman Bergson: Oh yes....Mick....[13:35] Mick Nerido: More developed?[13:35] herman Bergson: No..culturally determined....[13:35] Clerisse Beeswing: brainwashing[13:36] herman Bergson: Pride for Europeans is something completely different form pride for Arabs for instance...[13:36] Mick Nerido: Like a Japanese committing Hari Kari over guilt[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes...no european or American would do that...[13:37] Bejiita Imako: no[13:37] Mick Nerido: It is cultural there brains don't look different?[13:37] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you mean 'harakiri'?[13:37] Bejiita Imako: hmm and we also have a very nasty situation with middleast people murdering their daughters for their pride when a 14 year old refuse to marry a 50 year old man that family haven't choosed[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes indeed......Mick...we all have the same brain.....[13:38] Bejiita Imako: have been lot of such cases in sweden[13:38] Bejiita Imako: honor murder[13:38] herman Bergson: But what we regard as standards and moral values.....these are not just evolutionary products...[13:38] herman Bergson: the cognitive powers are...[13:38] Bejiita Imako: its complex[13:38] Bejiita Imako: really complex[13:39] Bejiita Imako: pride can be good pride can be bad[13:39] herman Bergson: But it leads to the question...why do people differ of opinion even about basic things of life...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: depending on how it is defined for a person[13:39] herman Bergson: and then you are in the midst of the philosophical discourse :-)[13:39] Clerisse Beeswing: learning and education might have something to do with that[13:39] Mick Nerido: A mother dieing to protect her child is not cultural[13:39] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:40] herman Bergson: Education is indeed a crucial matter in this Clerisse..absolutely[13:40] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): depends what the education is[13:40] herman Bergson: But even there starts the philosophical debate ....What should be the content of that education??????[13:41] Bejiita Imako: yes education should be about actuyal fact otherwise u tend to brainwash people in things that isn't true[13:41] herman Bergson: Our idea could be...learn them to read and write and let them read what they want and then come up with their own opinion[13:41] Bejiita Imako: like religious sects[13:42] Mick Nerido: Didn't Plato say philosophers should rule?[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje..that is what I meant[13:42] Clerisse Beeswing: right professor[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:43] Clerisse Beeswing: but I am not saying some religious sects are bad[13:43] Mick Nerido: The writers of the text book decide[13:43] herman Bergson: another issue Mick..indeed[13:43] herman Bergson: But notice....[13:44] herman Bergson: we have moved from evolutionary based emotions and responses into the realm oth the neocortext....the part that makes us so human....makes us think...[13:44] Doodus Moose: (the part that torments us)[13:44] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:44] Bejiita Imako: i guess[13:44] Mick Nerido: Good point Doodus[13:44] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:45] herman Bergson: What counts here is that you have to keep an eye onhow our basic emotions coontrol our behavior[13:45] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can we control our basic emotions?[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Doodus....In that sense you could follow Sartre..[13:45] Bejiita Imako: and not just letting it speed away but stop and thing, is tthis the right thing to do?`[13:45] Bejiita Imako: think[13:46] herman Bergson: Only to some extend Beertje..fear is fear...and the responses are rpogrammed[13:46] Bejiita Imako: guess that is how we work basically[13:46] herman Bergson: we work in a very complex way Bejiita...[13:46] Bejiita Imako: indeed[13:47] Bejiita Imako: and what we learn decide how we toggle our instinctive emotions[13:47] Mick Nerido: I think basic emotions and secondary emotions are like geology what is deep inside is hidden but can cayuse earthquakes[13:47] Bejiita Imako: what is right wrong sort of[13:47] herman Bergson: We love to divide it in rational and emotional....but that is such a simplistic look at human behavior and the functioning of the brain[13:47] Bejiita Imako: thats just the basics i guess[13:48] herman Bergson: To some extend you are right Mick....[13:49] herman Bergson: Our basic emotions are faster than our rational responses..[13:49] Doodus Moose ponders [13:49] herman Bergson: First there is the fear.....[13:49] Bejiita Imako: indeed[13:49] herman Bergson: you react...[13:49] Bejiita Imako: thats why we often act before we think[13:49] Bejiita Imako: its like a reflex[13:49] herman Bergson: only afterwards you rationally reconstruct what you did as a response[13:50] Bejiita Imako: then we stop and "OOOUUUPPPS!"[13:50] Bejiita Imako: HEHE[13:50] herman Bergson: the response is not the product of the prefrontal lobe or neocortex....they only may have assisted as brainparts13:51] herman Bergson: ok...one down...^_^[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): lol[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hahaha[13:51] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): to much fear i guess[13:51] herman Bergson: 7 left..:-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:52] herman Bergson: Well...thank you for your inspiring participation......[13:52] herman Bergson: before others go down.....Class dismissed :-)[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman[13:52] Mick Nerido: Enjoyed the class...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:52] Clerisse Beeswing: thank you professor[13:52] Doodus Moose: always, thankful, Professor[13:52] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman[13:52] Bejiita Imako: aaa was nice the stuff i snapped up[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:52] herman Bergson: It was a good discussion![13:53] Bejiita Imako: really[13:53] Jerome Ronzales: :([13:53] herman Bergson: What troubles you Jerome?[[13:53] Jerome Ronzales: :P bad timing[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: read the blogg Jerome[13:54] herman Bergson: I see...[13:54] Jerome Ronzales: ok[13:54] herman Bergson: Dont worry..there always is a next lecture[13:54] Bejiita Imako: will check that too for the beginning[13:55] Jerome Ronzales: well its almost impossible to attend all the classes[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: bye all :)[13:55] herman Bergson: Isn't required Jerome...there always is the blog....[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Ciska[13:55] Doodus Moose: "My brain - that's my second favorite organ" - Woody Allen in Sleeper[13:55] Bejiita Imako: cu CIska[13:55] Jerome Ronzales: ok[13:55] Jerome Ronzales: cya next time[13:55] herman Bergson: lol..Doodus....[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aa cu[13:56] Doodus Moose: feel myself - getting - transparent.......[13:56] Jerome Ronzales: thats a good one[13:56] herman Bergson: A lot of men in SL even don't seem to have a second organ[13:56] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): very true![13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
