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

686: Wittgenstein on introspection...

An important criticism of introspectionism we encounter in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). 

  

When Harry strikes his thumb and says "I'm in pain," he does so, according to introspection theory, 

  

based on a certain mental state (a sense of pain) he has seen with his inner eye. 

  

However, Wittgenstein argues that we are making a fundamental mistake when we think this is the way we gain self-knowledge. 

  

The introspective theory leaves room for a radical form of skepticism. For example, how does Harry know that he means the same thing with "pain" like someone else? 

  

As his friend Barry strikes his thumb with the same hammer and also says "I'm in pain," Harry and Barry seems likely 

  

to mean the same thing with their pronunciation: they have seen a similar kind of internal condition. 

  

But how can we actually know if their verdict is based on introspection? Since Harry and Barry can only have knowledge of their own mental state, 

  

and not of the others, they can never be sure if the other feels pain or something else, “minx” for example. 

  

This is not just a problem for Harry's knowledge of Barry, but also for the knowledge Harry has of himself. 

   

After all, how does Harry know that the pain he felt after he hit the thumb with his hammer is of the same kind as the pain he felt when he stumbled across a tree stump?

  

According to the introspection theory, just as you can see, for example, a cup of porcelain or plastic, you can 'see' an experience of pain or itchiness. 

   

The meaning of the word 'pain' is thus derived from introspection. When Harry says, "I'm in pain," he means, "I have experience X." 

  

But when he stumbles over a tree stump, Harry does not have experience X, but experience Y. So how does Harry know that in both cases it is an experience of pain? 

  

With these types of skeptical questions, Wittgenstein wants to show in the first place something is wrong with the introspective theory and the idea of ​​an 'internal world' that we can perceive. 

   

You can not experience each others experiences, only your own. If we accept the introspective theory, it's impossible to know what pain means,

     

because everybody may have just another experience. Because of this private character of experiences, we will never know 

   

if Harry and Barry, when they both use the word 'pain', actually mean the same. And that also eliminates the ability to understand what it means to others to have pain. 

  

The introspection theory ultimately leads to a state of solipsism (solo =  'alone' and ipse = ‘self'), in which there is no such thing as a shared language or meaning. 

  

The knowledge we have of ourselves may seem to be a private matter, but that is not the case says Wittgenstein. 

   

Concepts like 'pain' but also 'hunger', 'fear' and 'happiness' derive their meaning from a social world, that is, from a common context in which these words are used. 

   

Language is, according to Wittgenstein, embedded in usage rules, and you must be able to follow and apply them.  

   

When we say we have pain or hunger, or want to go to the cinema, in those cases we play a particular game - a language game - that is bound to certain rules, as Wittgenstein calls it.

According to the rule you hit your thumb with a hammer and then show certain behaviour including uttering a word: pain.

     

This is because everybody does so in our language. Thus gets the word “pain” its meaning.

   

It is not so that you hit your thumb and then through introspection you ‘see’ the word pain.  

Significance and thus self-knowledge can not be achieved simply by linking a word to an experience. We must first know how that word is used in a social context. 

  

Proponents of introspection theory assume the idea that we should first of all have knowledge of our own mental states and, on the basis of that, acquire knowledge of others. 

   

Meaning goes from inside to outside. Wittgenstein turns this around: first of all, we need to know 

  

how to use the concepts in a social context before we can apply them to ourselves to gain self-knowledge. Meaning goes from the outside to the inside.

    

Thank you for your attention again … ^_^

The Discussion

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we can tell the experience is the same for everyone by the reaction (jumping around yelling and swearing after hittng the thumb with the hammer)

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (aims haper at hermans head to give hom experience x and see if that is the same as well)

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

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): experience z it would be

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

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): depends on the impact of the hammer on the head or thumb

[13:28] herman Bergson: The main idea here is how we look at language....

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in all cases it hurts

[13:28] CB Axel: I tend to agree with Wittgenstein, but the language had to have started internally with someone who was the first to use a particular word like pain.

[13:28] herman Bergson: and how words get a meaning...

[13:29] herman Bergson: yes CB but that is a theoretical approach just like mankind had to start with at least one couple...

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all grts togethre

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): DAMN CANt tyPE At ALL TODAY, ! too much rumbling around befor i guess

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im tired

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): played floorball again

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

[13:30] herman Bergson: Logically you could come to such a conclusion but in reality...?

[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you callit tired Bejiita, but what is tired for you?

[13:30] CB Axel: LOL

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): wanting to sleep

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats tired for me

[13:30] herman Bergson: We only understand bejiita when we use the same language game rules :-)

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess you all want to sleep as well when tired

[13:31] herman Bergson: rule 1....I want to sleep :-)

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just as me

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the reaction is same

[13:31] CB Axel: Tim Minchin wrote a song for the musical Matilda that starts out with this idea of what one person experiences may not be what another experiences.

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): afraid of me John? i don't bite :)

[13:31] herman Bergson: means I can use the word "tired"

[13:31] CB Axel: So I've thought about this before.

[13:31] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): no no

[13:31] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I crashed sorry

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not now I mean..

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like hitting herman in the head with a hammer would be as much pain as him stumbling over a root only in different places

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in both cases its pain

[13:32] CB Axel: I've thought about how, if I could somehow get put into someone else's brain, would things look the same to me.

[13:33] encidious Opus: wow , 4 h's Hitting Herman in the Head with a Hammer

[13:33] CB Axel whispers: That's a lot of alliteration. LOL

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): loool, that was NOT intentional!

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

[13:33] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I think that in those years they didn't know the human brain as we do now

[13:33] encidious Opus: see you're not tired

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I am tired but clinging on

[13:34] herman Bergson: Teh main subjec there is the question...do we have a slef and how can we know it...

[13:34] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): a what?

[13:34] CB Axel: self

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): think Herman is tired too

[13:34] herman Bergson: The introspectionists link language directly to experiences....

[13:34] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): ok

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): just like me

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

[13:35] herman Bergson: Wittgenstein shows us that this leads to sollipsism ultimately....

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self is a seemingly obvious yet complex thing

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as i get it

[13:35] herman Bergson: for the owrds I use for my inner experiences  have no meaning for others...

[13:35] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): to some extent, no

[13:36] herman Bergson: Wittgenstein points at the social context in which language functions

[13:36] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe the language we use is too limited

[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): modern medicine confirms that the perception of pain is not the same in everybody

[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): and it varies between the sexes

[13:36] herman Bergson: meaning originates form the rules people use to use words

[13:36] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): so, you have some scientific evidence for it

[13:37] herman Bergson: pain is a difficult phenomenon...

[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes there is a difference between mans flue and womans flue

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): mans flue seems worse:)

[13:38] CB Axel: hehehe

[13:38] herman Bergson: well at least there is some level at which every human being will say: I am in pain....

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hitting the little toe in all cases also make you jump around screaming and swearing = same experience or?

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): isn’t it?

[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no. it's your experience

[13:39] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): The self or selfish part is what motivates us the most. The ego

[13:39] CB Axel: Same reaction to that experience, but if you were able to put yourself into someone else's brain and then hit your/his thumb with a hammer, would if feel the same as it would have if you were still in your own self?

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all i know react that way to that event

[13:39] herman Bergson: General conclusion is that the word pain does not derive its meaning form introspective observing pain

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting indeed, is it same for all or not

[13:40] herman Bergson: but according to Wittgenstein, from the social context a word is used in

[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): SCience says no, CB

[13:40] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): science says that we have a difference in pain threshold

[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes...

[13:41] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_pain

[13:41] herman Bergson: women seem to have higher tresholds than men :-)

[13:41] herman Bergson: the whimpeys :-)

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

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

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Some part of the question has been replied by science since Wittgenstein

[13:42] herman Bergson: To know yourself and express it in language means that you use words which are not private, but derived from a social context

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): He would probably formulate the question differently

[13:42] CB Axel: strike

[13:42] CB Axel: I'm not talking threshold. I'm talking about the actual feeling. Perhaps, if I were to enter your brain that hammer my feel like what I, in my own body and self, would feel like a tickle. But in that other body/self, it would be just as uncomfortable.

[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): so would dozens of others if they know what we know now

[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): now we know that the personality can be changed with few grams of a given chemical

[13:43] CB Axel: strike

[13:43] CB Axel: But to both of us that hammer would still make us pull our hand away and scream and, in my case at least, swear up a storm.

[13:43] herman Bergson: what chemical John?

[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): WE know that Depression can be cured by drugs. and without depression half of World's literature and art wouldn't exist

[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): art and literature, as well as philosophy are the product of sheer pain

[13:44] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): mental pain

[13:45] herman Bergson: That sounds too poetic John :-)

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

[13:45] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): we can expect a decline in creativity in future generation due to the advancement of Psychiatry

[13:45] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): generations

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I create literature and art without being depressed (my game/interactine story making projects)

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but also my projects are a bit special

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

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

[13:46] CB Axel: Joy can be a creative force as well as saddness. °͜°

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and i still cant type SIGH

[13:46] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): you're not famous, lol

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

[13:46] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): I said half, not the whole

[13:46] CB Axel: That's not poor typing, Bejiita. It's creativity.

[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nope and also its not the purpose of it

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i just want to create stuff from my fantasy and reams

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dreams

[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cool stuff

[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): how do you know Bejiita is not famous?

[13:47] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Wittgenstein himself was in a huge pain

[13:47] CB Axel: Creativity born of excitation and exhaustion. LOL

[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you don't know him

[13:47] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Ok, I take it back, he's famous

[13:48] herman Bergson: Well, I guess...enough said about this issue....

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im not a star yet but i have at least been nominated to Swedish Talent for my dance abilities once, did not make it all the way though as there were so many seeking this year

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i was really close and will try again

[13:48] herman Bergson: BEfore we get lost in the  metaphysics of pain,

[13:48] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): anyway, the greatest feats of art, science, literature and ultimately Phylosophy generate from a state of pain, anguish, fear, rage or anguish

[13:48] herman Bergson: I'd like to thank you for your active participation again :-)

[13:49] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): the greatest advancement in science and technology happen during or because of wars

[13:49] herman Bergson: So thank you all....class dismiised ^_^

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now lets hit ourselves in the head with a hammer and go to sleep

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

[13:49] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): great again Herman ㋡

[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): welterusten Bejiita

[13:49] herman Bergson: If you like to continue the discussion plz feel free to do so :-)

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:49] CB Axel: And I still say that there has been great art that was spawned by joy.

[13:49] CB Axel: So there.

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: welterusten beertje

685: Is Introspection the Method...?

An influential answer to the question of what makes self-knowledge so special is found in the philosophical tradition that originates from the work of Rene Descartes (1596-1650). 

   

According to this tradition, we must see self-knowledge as a way of introspection, a kind of 'inner' perception. 

   

Just as there are things in the world that we can see by looking outside, there are things in our consciousness that we can see when we look inside.

    

Literally translated, this is exactly what introspection means: the Latin word ‘intra ‘means 'inward', and ‘spectare’ means ‘to watch / look’. 

   

The first question that arises here is of course this meaning: do we really LOOK INWARD? It is absurd to assume that we have eyes inside our skull.

   

And if we had, we wouldn’t see a thing because it must be dark inside, I guess. But I also can elaborate on this metaphor

       

You can imagine introspection as a flashlight shedding light in a dark treasure room, your consciousness, on all sorts of shiny objects, such as your convictions, desires, feelings and intentions. 

      

This approach of self-knowledge is also known as the introspection theory. 

    

In Cartesian tradition, self-knowledge is often associated with the following two characteristics: infallibility and omniscience. 

    

Infallibility means that you can not be mistaken when it comes to what mental state you have now.

     

If you think you are in pain, or you're in love, then that's actually the case. However, other people have no infallible knowledge of your thoughts.

     

If they think you are in pain, they may be wrong. Maybe you just try to fool them. 

    

Omniscience means that you have knowledge of all your mental states. It is impossible to not be aware of your thoughts, desires, intentions or beliefs. There is nothing that can escape your inner eye. 

   

These two features make sure that a significant difference arises between self-knowledge and the knowledge we have about the mental world of others. 

   

Today, most philosophers agree that infallibility and omniscience are too high a standard, when it comes to self-knowledge. 

   

Nevertheless this belief, that using  your inner eye, this method of introspection, is a reliable method of acquiring knowledge has been very influential.

    

Of course there is a main role for Descartes here in the history of philosophy, but there still exists also neo-cartesianism.

   

Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938) was a German  philosopher who established the school of phenomenology.

   

“Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology”  is a book (1931) by him, based on four lectures he gave at the Sorbonne, in the Amphithéatre Descartes on February 23 and 25, 1929. Typical….!

    

His whole philosophy was based on this looking inward at mental phenomena to  examine the essence of a mental object, be it a simple mental act, 

  

or the unity of consciousness itself, with the intention of drawing out the absolutely necessary and invariable components that make the mental object what it is.

   

And don’t forget his contemporary Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939), Nowadays his name is sometimes spelled as Sigmund Fraud.

   

His whole theory of psycho-analysis is based on introspection. And he discovered all kinds of interesting things with his “flashlight shedding light in a dark treasure room”.

   

I do not deny the existence of introspection, but the “inner eye” metaphor is misleading. It suggests that we can see “things” in our mind and that we can see everything.

   

However, introspection is not a reliable method to acquire reliable knowledge about the self. 

   

The best description of what introspection really is, would be for me: it is thinking about your thoughts, feelings, emotions, intentions, that is: thinking about what goes on in your mind.

    

And by doing so you won’t find anything that looks like a Self, but yet you can learn a lot about yourself.

    

Thank you again for your attention…. ^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

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

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

The Discussion

[13:17] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): thinks of see as a metaphor

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): for introspection

[13:18] herman Bergson: Yes....

[13:18] herman Bergson: It puts you on the wrong track, I'd say

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we can access whats in our brain basically like a computer can access its disk drives but unlike the computer there is no way for other people to plug into and "download" what is in your head

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thus mind reading is an impossibility

[13:19] herman Bergson: lovely SF theme....mind reading :-)

[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): only you can know what you think and feel, the only way for others to know is if you tell them but sometimes, like when you lie this is incorrect information

[13:20] herman Bergson: Would be a disaster for first-person authority :-)

[13:21] herman Bergson: The main issue to me is this THINKING about what goes on in your mind

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:21] herman Bergson: Some like to call this thinking 'introspection'

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok

[13:21] herman Bergson: But I prefer to call it interpretation...

[13:22] herman Bergson: you can not look into your mind.....

[13:22] herman Bergson: that is a metaphor...

[13:22] CB Axel: Right. You can't actually look with your eyes into your own head.

[13:23] CB Axel: Even if you could, all you'd see is brain matter, blood vessels, etc.

[13:23] CB Axel: It wouldn't tell you much.

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or a black cat

[13:23] herman Bergson: no....but we use expressions like that.....look inward and search...

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

[13:24] CB Axel: You might discover you have a brain tumor or have had a stroke, but it wouldn't tell you what you're thinking or feeling.

[13:24] herman Bergson: so the interesting thing here is to understand thie THINKING as an act....

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sure is

[13:24] herman Bergson: and brings it knowledge of the Self

[13:24] CB Axel: So, introspection isn't really a good word, I guess.

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): especially when trying to meditate!!!

[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:24] herman Bergson: I would drop it indeed CB :-))

[13:25] CB Axel: When I try to think about what I'm thinking, I just start going in mental circles.

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): what will we use then

[13:25] herman Bergson: to suggest a relation with "seeing" points you in the wrong direction

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true cb

[13:26] herman Bergson: You can but you don't do that every time CB....

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): most of our thoughts seem to be about what is around us.... people... things... etc that affect us

[13:26] herman Bergson: When you think about your actions....oh my, what am I doing....for instance

[13:26] herman Bergson: or your emotions....

[13:26] herman Bergson: ....am I really in love?

[13:27] herman Bergson: dozens of times a day you think about  what goes on in your mind

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

[13:27] herman Bergson: I understand your circles idea CB....

[13:28] herman Bergson: It is exactly what we are dealing with here.....

[13:28] herman Bergson: When you say ...I am thinking about myself, which means everything that now goes on in you...

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we can say 'hush'to that moneky in our head , but it won't keep still

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes beertje

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

[13:29] herman Bergson: the interesting question is....WHO or WHAT is that "I" and how do I have to understand this act of thinking....

[13:29] herman Bergson: Here too Beertje...who is this "hush" sayer?

[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i call the hush sayer 'me'

[13:30] herman Bergson: so in a way we can double ourselves.....

[13:30] CB Axel: Then who is the monkey?

[13:30] herman Bergson: Ask Beertje CB :-)

[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): the monkey is the thoughts that keep coming

[13:30] CB Axel: I have to admit that the annoying monkey in my head is also me.

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

[13:31] CB Axel: The Mr. Hyde to my Dr. Jekyl. °͜°

[13:31] herman Bergson: Where is the Self of these two? :-)

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): kohoh cb dualism

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

[13:32] CB Axel: Freud would have said it's both the id and the superego.

[13:32] CB Axel: Or is the ego the self?

[13:32] herman Bergson: so there is Me and the one who I am thinking about (which happens to be me too:-)

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think there are no two, just one..the self or the me

[13:33] herman Bergson: the EGO is just a term from psycho analytical theory

[13:34] herman Bergson: There is one brain and one mind indeed.....

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): not alowwed in this class :))

[13:34] CB Axel: Yeah. I pretty much gave up on Freud because he thought everything was about sex.

[13:34] herman Bergson: but that mind plays the trick that it can look at itself...

[13:34] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): for Freud it was reality

[13:35] herman Bergson: yes ..today is everything about sex indeed  but not in the sense Freud meant ^_^

[13:35] CB Axel: Since we don't even understand how thought works, what consciousness is, how can we explain being able to think about our thoughts?

[13:35] herman Bergson: That is the question indeed CB

[13:36] herman Bergson: But we do....so we want to understand

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we know but we still dont know

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort of

[13:36] herman Bergson: That's what philosophers do ^_^

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we know

[13:37] herman Bergson: At least we can say that this staring inward is no use...there is nothing to see ^_^

[13:37] herman Bergson: Better to stare at your bellybutton ^_^

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

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

[13:38] CB Axel: °͜°

[13:38] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is that usefull Herman?

[13:38] herman Bergson: So in fact it boils down to the question.....

[13:39] herman Bergson: What kind of act or process is this thinking about your personal thoughts, feelings and so on

[13:39] herman Bergson: Some might conclude....

[13:40] herman Bergson: if it is thinking...then there is nothing special about my pricvate thinking and the thinking of others...

[13:40] herman Bergson: so...maybe there is kn knowledge of our Self at all...

[13:41] herman Bergson: But we'll discuss that in the next lectures :-)

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

[13:41] herman Bergson: Now I'll offer you a whole week to think about yourself....for no classes next week...I  need a vacation ^_^

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

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

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

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

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so do we

[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): op naar Schier:)

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very nice

[13:42] CB Axel: I'll spend the week thinking about thinking about what I'm thinking.

[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...saves me one week of chaos due to wintertime shift

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

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very very true

[13:42] herman Bergson: I'll think about that too CB :-)

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): tho in fall it is only half bad

[13:42] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): a lot of thinking about again

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): spring is worse!!!!

[13:43] herman Bergson: Europe is palnning to abolish winter/summertime changes

[13:43] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe this will be the last change of time, they want to quit it

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least i can sleep for 1 hour LONGER this time and not the other way around

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh nice

[13:44] CB Axel: I wish the US would. It's so stupid.

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we talk about it every year then go and do it

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): doesnt matter much though since im always a zombie when i awake most of the time no matter how long i sleep

[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least im no morning guy

[13:44] herman Bergson: It is proven that it has a lot  of serious negative health consequences...this time shifting

[13:44] CB Axel: Twice a year I have to think hard about what time it is in Europe.

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

[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i love the mornings, the best time of the day

[13:44] CB Axel: And I never know what time it is in Arizona.

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

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

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

[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they dont change

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

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): have a good time

[13:45] CB Axel: The only time I see sunrise is if I've been awake all night. °͜°

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope the weather is good and not too windy

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed this change back and forth is kind of crazy

[13:45] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it's 22.45 h now CB

[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..then I wish you all a nice week off

[13:45] herman Bergson: Thank you all again

[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): have a good time there now Herman

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: have a nice week off herman

[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: thank you

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

[13:45] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^

[13:46] CB Axel: Have a nice holiday. °͜°

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)

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

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye all for now

[13:46] herman Bergson: Schiermonnikoog is waiting :-)

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone ㋡

[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: enjoy

[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye cb:-))

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

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

If you see someone gesturing on the street with his hand, you might think he's waving to you. But you do not know for sure.

  

Perhaps he tries to hit an irritating fly, or to call a taxi. At the same time, you probably assume that this person himself 

  

knows what's in his mind at the moment, whether he's waving at you, hiting a fly, or trying to hold a taxi. 

  

Thus, there seems to be a significant difference between the knowledge we have of others and the knowledge we have of ourselves. 

  

While we are often just guessing what goes on in the mind of others, we usually have the intuition that we know ourselves very well. 

   

When you say to the bartender that you're very thirsty, you'd look surprised if he would ask 'Are you sure you're thirsty?' 

  

or 'Are you sure you're thirsty and not hungry?' because you yourself will know this best, don’t you? When it comes to our inner life, we ourselves are the experts of experience. 

  

If we make a statement about what we think or feel, then this statement is generally not questioned. 

  

In philosophy, this is also called 'first-person authority'. But what exactly is the difference between self-knowledge and knowledge of others? 

   

And is it actually true that we know ourselves best?

   

In the previous lectures we discussed a number of ideas that address the ontological question of what the Self actually IS.

      

Ontology is the philosophical theory of what is, what exists. Is it  a thing? Is it an abstract concept. Is it a function of the brain to organise our perception and experiences?

Now, however, I’ll discuss some philosophers who are not primarily interested in the ontological question of the Self. 

   

For them their primary focus is on the question of HOW we actually know our thoughts, convictions, desires, intentions and emotions. 

   

This is an epistemological question. Epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, the question “What can I know (for certain)?.

    

In the next lectures I will discuss some answers to this epistemological question. First we ‘ll have a look at the Cartesian idea that self-knowledge is gained through the ability to introspect. 

   

Proponents of introspection say that this ability is the basis of the difference between self-knowledge and our knowledge of others, 

   

and also explains why we ourselves are experts when it comes to our inner lives. 

  

Then we’ll discuss two critical reactions to this idea: a philosophical criticism based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's work, and a scientific critique based on research in contemporary psychology. 

  

Then we’ll look at the theory of Gilbert Ryle, who states that self-knowledge is gained through our ability to interpret. 

  

According to Ryle, there is no significant difference between self-knowledge and the knowledge we have of others, and we should not assume that we know ourselves best. 

   

A next stop will be the theory of Richard Moran, who claims that self-knowledge is a matter of rational deliberation, actively determining what you think of something. 

   

Richard Moran is a Harvard professor who wrote the book “Authority and Estrangement -  An Essay on Self-Knowledge” (2002)

Thereafter I’ll show how so-called "unconscious prejudices" can influence our thinking, and what consequences this has for our understanding of self-knowledge. 

   

Finally, we’ll focus on Victoria McGeers idea of self-regulation, or the ability to match our behavior to what we think and vice versa.

    

Victoria McGeer is a research scholar and lecturer at Princeton University. She took her B.A. in Philosophy and Government at Dartmouth College

   

and her Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Toronto. She specializes in the philosophy of language and more prominently in the philosophy of mind.

    

As you see, we got a lot of work ahead. Get ready ! Thank you for your attention again…..

The Discussion 

[13:20] herman Bergson smiles

[13:20] herman Bergson: Oh....and  one special message....

[13:21] herman Bergson: Next week NO class...I'll enjoy a nicce vacation then :-))

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

[13:21] CB Axel: That will make it easier to deal with the time change. °͜°

[13:21] CB Axel: I hope you do have a nice vacation.

[13:22] herman Bergson: This was an easy lecture today ^_^

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes its winter time now soon

[13:22] herman Bergson: Again to the Island :-))

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

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

[13:22] herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita

[13:23] herman Bergson: This was just an introductory story for what is coming up next :-)

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

[13:24] herman Bergson: Guess I answered all your questions.....?

[13:24] CB Axel: That's nice for the people who didn't get here today.

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

[13:24] herman Bergson: I'll post it immediately.

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thursday is as usual or?

[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes...Thursday as usual Bejiita...even though I have this in mind.......

[13:26] CB Axel: LOL

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

[13:27] herman Bergson: So I'd say...see you all again on Thursday :-)

[13:27] herman Bergson: Class dismissed .....^_^

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