681: The Self as a category mistake...

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

      

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

     

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

     

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

    

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

   

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

   

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

      

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

       

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

     

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

      

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

     

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

   

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

    

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

     

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

    

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

   

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

     

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

   

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

    

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

      

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

    

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

   

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

    

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

   

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

        

Make it your next hobby to detect category mistakes. 

    

Thank you for your attention again… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:33] Piovefiore: and ends

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

[13:33] herman Bergson: of course Pio

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

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

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

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

[13:34] Piovefiore nods

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

[13:34] Piovefiore: Exactly

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

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

[13:35] herman Bergson smiles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:36] herman Bergson: sure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:42] Piovefiore: the danger of stereotyping

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:45] herman Bergson: ontologically

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

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

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

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

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

[13:46] herman Bergson: true Bejiita

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

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

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

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

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

[13:46] Piovefiore: We experience it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:52] Piovefiore: or of our identity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:56] Piovefiore: Hahaha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: yes

[13:58] Ciska Riverstone: (please)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14:00] Sandia Beaumont is online.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14:00] Piovefiore: :-)

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

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

[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed

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

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

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

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

[14:00] herman Bergson: Bye Bejiita

[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: take care

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

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

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

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

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

[14:01] herman Bergson: My pleasure Piovefiore

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

[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: take care piovefiore

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

680: Kant himself versus Hume

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

       

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

      

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

      

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

    

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

   

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

   

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

      

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

      

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

     

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

    

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

    

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

      

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

    

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

   

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

   

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

     

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

   

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

   

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

    

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

      

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

     

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

   

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

   

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

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

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

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

The Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:21] roos Gartner is offline.

[13:22] CB Axel: OK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:30] CB Axel: Cogito ergo sum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

679: Sorry.....there is no Self...

Ok, according to Metzinger there is no self. He isn’t the only one who thinks so. Victor Lamme, a famous neuroscientist, shares his opinion.

   

Lamme suggests that in our brain the only boss in our brain, and not an intangible self that controls our brains in one way or another. 

  

What we call “the Self”, Lamme says, is nothing more than a “chatterbox” that tries to justify our choices and actions by retrospectively compiling a good story.

  

However, the real causes of our choices and actions have long been in our brain, and we have nothing to say about it. 

  

Metzinger and Lamme defend a form of 'brain reductionism', reducing the self to the brain.

   

Brain reductionists do not deny that we can have the experience of a self. 

  

On the contrary, they argue that people often think that they themselves are the cause of the choices they make or the actions that they make. 

  

What they deny, however, is that this experience is proof of the real existence of a real self. 

  

But is it true that we encounter it in the experience? According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), that is not the case at all. 

  

In his “Inquiry Concerning Human  Understanding” (1739) he gives the following description of his quest for self:  

  

-quote-“When I think deeply about myself what I call myself, I always stumble on some concrete experience of heat and cold, of light or dark, love or hate and pain or pleasure. 

  

I can never catch myself without perception, and can never perceive anything except perception. 

  

When my perceptions are absent for some time, like in a deep sleep, I do not notice anything about myself, and it is true that it does not exist at the moment.”-end quote-

  

What Hume points out here is that, although we smell, feel and see, we never encounter an 'I' or 'self' in these perceptions. 

  

The human mind, Hume suggests, is a kind of theater where different experiences make their appearance, come on, slip back, or fuse. 

  

But he immediately points out that this is actually a misleading metaphor. The theater really does not exist. 

   

In addition, there is no viewer in this theater: there is no "I" that perceives these perceptions. I am nothing but a collection, a 'bundle' of loose perceptions 

  

that follow each other at high speed and are in a state of constant motion. 

  

There is no unity here because all perceptions differ and there is no numerical identity as they constantly change. 

  

Hume concludes that the self can not exist as something that remains the same throughout the time.

     

The interesting to Hume is that he tries to explain how it is that we are inclined to see the self as a stable and continuous thing. 

  

He points to the human imagination, which means that we keep the objects we perceive the same despite the fact that they are strictly not the same. 

  

In particular, if the object of our perception changes gradually and unmistakably, according to Hume, we tend to think

   

that in that case it has remained the same over time, for example, a young plant that grows into a big oak. 

  

If the object changes suddenly and quickly, we think that it has become another object. But, Hume says, in both cases there is ultimately a change. 

  

The only difference is that in the first case we imagine that something is something that remains the same throughout the time. 

  

But that does not mean that this really also exists as a stable and constant object. 

  

We can of course admit to our tendency, and maintain that the objects we observe, despite their differences, are constantly the same, but with that we would fool ourselves

   

In other words, we may have the belief, that  in us is a stable and constant something, which we call our “Self”, 

but that is an illusion.

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: The main point here is...

[13:24] herman Bergson: that both..Hume and the neuroscientists assume that we can/have to be able to sensory experience / see the Self

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): makes no sense to me

[13:25] herman Bergson: the notorious...IT MUST BE SOMEHTING....assumption

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm head spinning but i think i grasp most of it

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): if it is not visible

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not exist ?

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interior self?

[13:26] herman Bergson: ok Gemma...

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they say?

[13:26] herman Bergson: Take this....

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i see what they are sayig

[13:26] herman Bergson: You go to the university and visit all buildings...

[13:26] herman Bergson: faculty this and that...they all exist...

[13:26] herman Bergson: then you say...nice...but where is the university?

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all of it is the university

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): parts of it

[13:27] herman Bergson: yes...Bejiita...

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: well but tomorrow it might be the town hall  because the university moved

[13:27] herman Bergson: but then you ask....does the UNIVERSITY exist....

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): eeeh yes it does

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

[13:28] herman Bergson: SHow me...:-)

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume thinks not i guess

[13:28] herman Bergson: you can't

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): is it because of the knowledge of the brain at his lifetime?

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think so

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): its the building called university

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that group of buildings = the university

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

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the whole body of everything is the university

[13:29] CB Axel: A university is more than the buildings.

[13:29] herman Bergson: We'll get to this in a next lecture....

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not have skin

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it is what it is used for

[13:29] herman Bergson: but this is an interesting feature of our way of thinking....

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and what is in it that makes it a university

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

[13:29] CB Axel: Buildings, students, professors, ideas...

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

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

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): especially when you do nto really have go to the university anymore can do it all on internet

[13:30] herman Bergson: one the one hand we look for a real object....

[13:30] herman Bergson: and on the other hand a word may not refer to a real object...and yet we assume what it refers to exists

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: that’s the point gemma

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

[13:31] CB Axel: Hmmm. Ideas. Ideas are not objects, so they do not exist?

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): there is even one university near by that actually delivers diplomas in the big bus

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (system crash) SCREEEECH!

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

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ideas are indeed not physical but they still exist

[13:31] herman Bergson: The quintessential issue here is the meaning of the word "exist"

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm interesting ideas indeed

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone whispers: exist vs experience?

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume  believed what he  believed

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i guess everything does not have to be physical to exist

[13:32] herman Bergson: that is the point Bejiita....

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

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes "exist' refers to physical presence...

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sometimes

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes it does not, but yet we assume existence of what the word refers to

[13:34] herman Bergson: so the university "exists"....just like the building of the Department of Philosophy does

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the building plus what you use it for , physical + non physical thing define what it is

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

[13:35] herman Bergson: an empiricist takes words primarily as refering to physical observable objects....

[13:36] herman Bergson: but he gets nervous when he has to deal with more abstract terms...like university...

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well we went that route before

[13:36] herman Bergson: then he gets into ontological problems....

[13:36] herman Bergson: yes we often did Gemma...

[13:36] herman Bergson: Guess you may graduate now :-))

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

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪

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

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone has to sneak out - thanx a bunch everyone thank you herman

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye ciska

[13:37] herman Bergson: but we see this happen all day around us....

[13:38] herman Bergson: people who take terms as refering to really existing htings...

[13:38] herman Bergson: religions are good at that for instance

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

[13:38] herman Bergson: Why fight for freedom and democracy....

[13:39] herman Bergson: but plz...bring me  this democracy thing....so I know what I fight for for instance :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: does democracy exist???

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

[13:39] CB Axel: Not in the US.

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as a concept yes, as a physical thing no

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): many facets of it do

[13:39] herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita....

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and unfortunatley not in many places

[13:40] herman Bergson: and a philosopher then asks...what is the ontological status of a concept?

[13:40] herman Bergson: is it only just in your head?????

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a way to do a certain thing i guess

[13:40] herman Bergson: or in the heads of may people...???

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to acomplish a goal

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or something like that

[13:41] herman Bergson: If so...why...and what does that mean

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dint think I can define it more then that

[13:41] herman Bergson: ok...our refuge.....the definition of a term...

[13:42] herman Bergson: But there we have to agree on the definition..

[13:42] herman Bergson: another philosopher's job :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Yet it is a constant fight we have to go though with what we call reality...

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very true

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

[13:43] herman Bergson: anfd we can not give in or give up....

[13:44] CB Axel: I fight with reality all the time.

[13:44] CB Axel: And lose.

[13:44] herman Bergson: That is the quitessence of philosophy :-)

[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe you should fight another reality, CB?

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

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): perception becomes reallity sometimes

[13:46] herman Bergson: Hume , Lamme and Metzinger look for something observable, which they can point at as The Self...

[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe that is the wrong approach...

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it seems so

[13:47] herman Bergson: Psychologically what we experience in ourself as our Self is more a kind of organizing principle of the mind

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that makes sense

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and it progresses as we age

[13:48] herman Bergson: so the self is as real as the mind is...

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess you can say that

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that can be a definition of it

[13:48] herman Bergson: and nobody has seen the mind yet...but everyone assumes that the mind exists :-))

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess we had better assume that

[13:49] herman Bergson: well...sometimes you are in presidential doubt Gemma :-))

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

[13:49] CB Axel: Self is what we call our thoughts and memories when we don't know what else to call them.

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good cb

[13:50] Quistis Hoorenbeek (quistis.shippe) is online.

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self = recursion back to well yourself

[13:50] herman Bergson: Maybe the perosnal narrative, that Dennett means...CB

[13:50] CB Axel nods

[13:51] herman Bergson: Well..I guess we paved the way for the coming lectures :-))

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess so

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): when i say I i refer to self but when i say you im not referring to myself

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i refer to someone elses self then you can say

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but self is always you and no one else

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it is recursion

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

[13:52] herman Bergson: ok..:-)

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well time for me to check a thing out cu next time

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be hre tuesday

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

[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we are done for today...unless you still have a question or remark left..:-)

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this gets better and better I think

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some head wrangling

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

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you think of things in ways you normally dont

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like that university thing

[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...that's what philosophers often do :-))

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah ㋡

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

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

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

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats what I like with it i guess

[13:54] herman Bergson: The goal is to get things clear...

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): makes things more interesting

[13:54] CB Axel: That's an elusive goal.

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes cb

[13:54] herman Bergson: Well....thank you all again...nice discussion....

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

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

[13:55] CB Axel: It seems the more we think about these things, the muddier it all becomes.

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hopes beertje does not blow away

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

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

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

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): smiles:)

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

[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)