Friday, June 26, 2009

10: Is ethics possible without God or religion?

[Last posting before summervacation. I'll be back September 1.]

Is ethics possible without God or religion? It is question 10 of Stephen Law. Not my kind of question. I may be mistaken, but explicite atheism seems to be popular in the UK these days.

Law himself gave a presentation here in SL about his book in which he writes against authoritarian schools based on religious principles. And Dawkins of course rocked the boat with his "God delusion".

Is this philosophically worth the effort. My answer is NO. Like this question....what is it all about? Let's take the effort to read Law's conclusions about this question and I quote:

"My conclusion is not that we shouldnt give it a try to offer our children a moral education. In fact there is nothing more important. Neither do I want to say that moral education shouldnt take place at denominational schools.

My intention was simply to question as to the increasingly supported view that morality depends on God and religion, that there do not exist moral standards without God and that we will not be virtuous humans if religion doesnt guide our way?"

I dont know what your observation is, but what Stephen Law claims is not my observation at all. And second, he who knows the history of philosophy and in particular the history of ethics, can't say anything else but that this is philosophical nonsense.

This question as such is a waste of time. In fact it implies actually a theological point of view on ethics. That is ok with me, but this is a philosophy class and Law's book carries the title "The Philosophy Gym".

So let's put this question in philosophical perspective. What is the real question to ask? This question is as old as philosophy itself: what enables us to know what is right and what is wrong?

If we do not immediately introduce a God as the moral authority, this does not mean that thence moral standards are completely arbitrairy.
Philosophically a reference to God as the author of our moral standards is philosophically a metaphysical choice. And this choice we already discussed in question 7.

Since 22 November 1859, when "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin went on sale to booksellers, we are more familiar with the idea that the human being is a part of nature like all other creatures.

But we have that little extra: consciousness. And that makes a difference. However, when we observe all those other non human creatures, especially those who live in groups, then we can conclude only one thing:

The behavior of these creatures is not arbitrary and completely unpredictable. On the contrary, they all show a kind of standard rules of behavior. This is not moral behavior, it is behavior based on instinct and contributing to the survival of the group.

And in that respect I see little difference between human behavior and animal behavior, except that big difference. We can ask why we behave like we behave. And I suggest that we should continue to do so.

But not now (^_^).
The weather outside in RL is sunny and warm. This weekend we'll spend in Amsterdam attending parties and meeting with friends. One event is a boat trip through the canals of Amsterdam with the boat of friends of ours...well, I guess you already understand ........

Let's enjoy vacation and find new inspiration, because we will deal with these issues on ethics soon enough when we will deal with questions like 15, 17, 20 and 21.

[13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: very good!!!
[13:19] Qwark Allen: HEEHEH
[13:19] herman Bergson: See you on Tuesday, September 1!!! And thank you all for your interest in the Philosophy Class and your participation. And I wish you all a splendid summervacation.

The Discussion (with vacation in mind :-)

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: lol that was fast!!!
[13:20] Qwark Allen: to you to herman
[13:20] Alarice Beaumont: great.. i would love to come back again :-))
[13:20] Yakuzza Lethecus: wow what happened ?
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: he ended the lecture
[13:20] Qwark Allen: will you go to island this year?
[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: lol did not really start it
[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes..same island Qwark :-)
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: nice
[13:21] Qwark Allen: ah
[13:21] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:21] herman Bergson: three weeks this time instead of two :-)
[13:21] Qwark Allen: heheh ^^
[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: we will look for you on the walls of the virtual room
[13:21] Qwark Allen: you deserve it
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: oh have a fantastic time then!!!
[13:21] oola Neruda: i want to throw out the name of oppenheimer as a person who might make one stop and think about this question
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont: oh hey oola.. did not see you .. sorry :-(
[13:21] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:21] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:21] oola Neruda: hi Alarice
[13:21] Alarice Beaumont waves
[13:21] herman Bergson: what about Oppenheimer oola?
[13:23] oola Neruda: he was faced with a problem... if he did not help make the atomic bomb and the germans got to it first... and they nearly did... on the other hand, if he made it and then it got used.... what should he do... and ethics... with or without god... have a lot to think about
[13:23] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday no class...but I think you can attend Qwarks party then :-)
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:23] Qwark Allen: lool
[13:23] Macov Finkler: oops, misunderstood that lol
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: well make it easier on us too
[13:23] Qwark Allen: Partyyyyyyyyyy!!!!
[13:23] Qwark Allen: take openheimer with you too
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: shhhh
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes,,,you are right oola
[13:24] herman Bergson: But I think we'll keep that ethical dilemma for after the Summerbreak :-)
[13:24] oola Neruda: :-)
[13:24] herman Bergson: Because it really is a serious one
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: several classes i bet
[13:25] herman Bergson: Maybe yes Gemma..
[13:25] herman Bergson: Besides I am thinking about a series on the history of ethics
[13:25] Macov Finkler: can I quickly ask, by religion, does Law mean the pervading religion, or the idea of religion, and if the latter, what exactly is religion? Sorry if the question's out of place.
[13:26] herman Bergson: No ..he definitely thinks of christianity here
[13:26] oola Neruda: that is a good question Macov
[13:26] Macov Finkler: if it's christianity, I agree, the question's absurd
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes...I agree
[13:27] herman Bergson: The fact that the human being is tended to religious all cultures known so a completely different issue
[13:27] herman Bergson: altho I talked about that in lecture 7b :-) : :
[13:28] herman Bergson: Is your silence a sign that you long for vacation too?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Coming week is superb summer weather here :-)
[13:30] herman Bergson: While it is raining in Austria :-)
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: good
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: it has rained almost every day since june 1 here
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well...then I thank you all for participating today :-)
[13:30] Qwark Allen: OMG
[13:31] Qwark Allen: HERE sunny days
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: have a wonderful time Herman
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: send postcards
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:31] Qwark Allen: last week, almost melted my pc
[13:31] herman Bergson: Gonna be more than 26 C here coming days
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: good
[13:31] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:31] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:31] Qwark Allen: that is what it is here at a cold night
[13:31] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:31] herman Bergson grins
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: lol here already 27
[13:32] Alarice Beaumont: but quite humid...
[13:32] herman Bergson: I know you live at the North Pole Qwark :-)
[13:32] Alarice Beaumont: lool
[13:32] Qwark Allen: omg
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:32] Qwark Allen: south portugal
[13:32] herman Bergson: Global warming effect I guess
[13:32] Qwark Allen: almost a desert over here
[13:32] Qwark Allen: sahara coming on the way
[13:32] herman Bergson: oh my...
[13:32] Qwark Allen: last week was more then 40ºC most of the days
[13:33] herman Bergson: But isnt that common there Qwark?
[13:33] Qwark Allen: sometimes only
[13:33] Qwark Allen: not every years
[13:33] herman Bergson: ok
[13:34] Qwark Allen: last 2 years were kind of cold compared to this one
[13:34] Alarice Beaumont: oh my
[13:34] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:34] herman Bergson: 40 is very hot....I hope you have airco :-)
[13:34] Qwark Allen: more like the 24-26 ºC
[13:34] Qwark Allen: no i don`t
[13:34] Qwark Allen: was terrible week
[13:34] Macov Finkler: I can never remember back as far as a year... at least not about weather
[13:34] herman Bergson: me to Macov...:-)
[13:34] Qwark Allen: had to buy new cooler for cpu and new fan for the tpc tower
[13:35] Qwark Allen: in september you can win , a chess match to me [13:35] herman Bergson: I can image....with such temperatures
[13:36] Qwark Allen: everybody almost naked at homes
[13:36] Qwark Allen: *~*~rofl*~*~
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: i am looking at the chess set out there
[13:36] herman Bergson: Ah...:-)
[13:36] herman Bergson: I played a game with Macov before class....
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: qwark likes to play chess
[13:36] herman Bergson: the board is fun to play
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: i bet
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ehehehh
[13:37] Qwark Allen: nice chess
[13:37] herman Bergson: Great....I already have a date with Alarice...I'll add Qwark to the list :-)
[13:37] Qwark Allen: ^..^
[13:37] Qwark Allen: great
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: nice
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think I'll study some theory during my vacation..:-)
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:38] herman Bergson: Oh..something else....
[13:38] herman Bergson: A chinese person ...I mean from RL China suggested to do a project...
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:39] herman Bergson: Reading a book together...
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: you remembered lol
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: oh
[13:39] herman Bergson: She wanted to read the Republic of Plato!
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: ohh dear
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: oh my
[13:40] herman Bergson: I agreed ...interesting how such an old Greek fits in in Chinese thinking about the state
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: we will come here and visit to make sure everything stays in place lol
[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. and clean of the dust
[13:40] herman Bergson: I dont go to china Gemma :-)
[13:40] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:40] Qwark Allen: ♥゚*:;;:*゚♥゚*:;;:*゚♥ ☜❤☞Gemma☜❤☞ ♥゚*:;;:*゚♥゚*:;;:*゚♥
[13:40] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i know that lol
[13:40] Macov Finkler: I still haven't gotten the vibe... Plato's republic as an obviously good thing, or obviously bad thing? =)
[13:41] herman Bergson: I cant say yet Macov....
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: in which language herman??????
[13:41] herman Bergson: I read about it ..not the book itself
[13:41] herman Bergson: in English
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ahha
[13:41] Qwark Allen: lool
[13:41] herman Bergson: the book is available as ebook
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: and the person reads english well??
[13:41] Qwark Allen: nice
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: or ok??
[13:42] herman Bergson: yes she is a university graduate in communication and philosophy....eager to learn
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: ah good
[13:42] herman Bergson: so...besides the class I gonna do that project and maybe find two or three other people to participate
[13:43] herman Bergson: I was enchanted by the idea of reading a book together
[13:44] herman Bergson: But I'll do some PR on the project in September ...
[13:44] herman Bergson: some advertizement
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: WELL
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: i think it is time to let Herman go lol'
[13:45] herman Bergson smiles
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: and we will be off
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: party at 2
[13:45] Qwark Allen: let herman go in vacations
[13:45] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:45] herman Bergson: Your philosophical education shows Gemma :-)
[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: I have with my children. often together read, a book. lying on the bed. how goes into sl?
[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-)
[13:46] herman Bergson: Ah open up new perspectives...we'll discuss that later ^_*
[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: lol+
[13:46] Macov Finkler: audiobook would work
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: all if you want to come to the party let me know
[13:47] Qwark Allen: i`ll play progressive today
[13:47] herman Bergson: Next time conservative, Qwark?
[13:47] Qwark Allen: eeheheheh
[13:47] Qwark Allen: it very interesting music
[13:48] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: Bye
[13:48] Qwark Allen: so nice classes were this last year
[13:48] Qwark Allen: looking foward to next ones
[13:48] herman Bergson: I'll be ready. Qwark
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: sorry i have to go
[13:50] Alarice Beaumont: have a good time then
[13:50] herman Bergson: class is dismissed Alarice ^_^
[13:51] herman Bergson: I dont know your plans, but I go and rezz some sculpted prims :-)
[13:51] herman Bergson: So..thank you all..and if you will excuse me ...
[13:53] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman danke für die lektionen in den letzten wochen

9: Why don't they call my painting ART?

Art is one of those typical philosophical issues that leads to endless debates. Don't blame yourself if you ever got involved in one. The debate is as old as philosphy. Homer and Hesiod themselves raised the question of the source of the artist’s inspiration, which they attributed to divine power.

There we go....the artist as al person with connections to special sources we dont have. Plato does not himself assign a special name to what we call 'art'; for him they belong in the more general class of “craft” (techne), which includes all skills in making or doing, from woodcraft to statecraft. Maybe a second anchorpoint.....craftmanship.

And if the artist inspired by the Muses is like a diviner in not knowing what he is doing , he may have a kind of insight that goes beyond ordinary knowledge, according to Plato. His madness (mania) may be possession by a divinity that inspires him to truth.

Maybe we have a few nice ingredients for making an artist now: connection with special (divine) sources, craftmanship and characteristics of a diviner in translating special insights into his work.

The early church Fathers were somewhat doubtful of beauty and the arts: They feared that a keen interest in earthly things might endanger the soul, whose true vocation lies elsewhere,

especially since the literature, drama, and visual art they were acquainted with was closely associated with the pagan cultures of Greece and Rome.

But despite the danger of idolatry, sculpture and painting became accepted as legitimate aids to piety, and literature became accepted as part of education in the liberal arts. Because the masses couldnt read or write the gothic windows became the predecessor of our modern comicbooks.

The Renaissance was a special case. There the debate started about which are was more art than other arts. Painting was definitely a winner here.

This definitely had something to do with the fact that in a painting you could imitate reality in the best possible way, better than in a sculpture or in words of a poem.

Rationalism with its belief in clear and distinct ideas brought the hope that we could formulate the rules by which something was called art or beautiful.

It hoped to find a more solid, a priori, foundation by deduction from a basic self-evident axiom, such as the principle that art is imitation of nature—where nature comprised the universal, the normal, the essential, the characteristic, the ideal.

We see that never ending philosophical quest here at work, the search for that definition, for that special attribute which makes an object an work of art. What is that special property, which makes something an art-object.

The British empiricists chose another strategy. In the Baconian tradition of empiricism they were greatly interested in the psychology of art (though they were not merely psychologists), especially the creative process and the effects of art upon the beholder.

By assigning to the problems of aesthetic judgment the major part of his third Critique (The Critique of Judgment, 1790), Kant became the first modern philosopher to make his aesthetic theory an integral part of a philosophic system.

Schiller in the remarkable Briefe über die ästhetische Erzieung des Menschen (“Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man,” 1793–1795), developed a neo-Kantian view of art and beauty as the medium through which humanity (and the human individual) advances from a sensuous to a rational, and therefore fully
human, stage of existence.

Here we may have a fourth ingredient to make a good artist: art as a means to inmprove our human existence, to reach a higher level. That fits in quite nicely with our the other ingredients: connection with special (divine) sources, craftmanship and characteristics of a diviner in translating special insights into his work.

And then we go all out romantic. The romantics generally conceived of art as essentially the expression of the artist’s personal emotions.

A new version of the cognitive view of art becomes dominant in the concept of the imagination as a faculty of immediate insight into truth, distinct from, and perhaps superior to, reason and understanding—the artist’s special gift.

The idea of the work of art as being, in some sense (in some one of many possible senses), a symbol, a sensuous embodiment of a spiritual meaning, though old in essence, as we have seen, came into a new prominence in the romantic period.

The missing link???
A playful man, Marcel Duchamp challenged conventional thought about artistic processes and art marketing, not so much by writing, but through subversive actions such as dubbing a urinal "art" and naming it "Fountain". (1917)

And thus we arrive at the end of our journey in our search of understanding what is art. Duchamp proved that the qualifying characteristic was not beauty. Maybe the qualifying factor is one of the other ingredients...the artist tells us a special truth, or maybe he shows a special insight, which we, ordinary people dont have.

A last resort is the idea of Wittgenstein, that our search for that special quality which makes an object a work of art, is just a philosophical illusion. When we look at all things we call art, we see that they have properties in common, like children in a large family have. They are in some respects the same and yet all different.

In other words, there is no such thing as a clear definition of art and yet the most beautiful thing of art is, that we all know what art is. And did it ever occur to you that the word 'artist' isnt the name of a profession at all. It is a title, a kind of a degree of being.

The Discussion

[13:30] Paula Dix: isnt like music, we cant say when simple sound turn into music, but we all know what music is?
[13:31] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: and did they apply the same to music as art??
[13:31] herman Bergson: Music is a special kind of art...
[13:32] oola Neruda: all of the examples that herman gave... had different "qualities"...and those qualities reflected the time and place where they were created
[13:32] herman Bergson: I think has been functional for a long religious settings and in settings of entertainment
[13:32] Paula Dix: i was reading the class about how religion appeared, and now wonder if we dont have some brain thing that let use recognize art? I know some people are deaf to music
[13:32] herman Bergson: The romantics made it that great expression of emotions
[13:32] oola Neruda: i believe we have to look at each individual piece and bring to it an understanding of that time and place
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: and blind to some forms of art
[13:33] herman Bergson: I guess you may be right Paula
[13:33] Paula Dix: yes gemma
[[13:33] herman Bergson: Neurobiological research scans brainactivity when people see things..
[13:33] oola Neruda: art involves a language...that is expressed in color, shape, line etc. instead of in sounds/words
[13:34] oola Neruda: and you learn to speak the language just as you learn to speak a verbal language
[13:34] herman Bergson: That is only a metaphor, oola
[13:34] herman Bergson: I think that what is increasingly important is the efffect of works of art on the central nervous system
[13:34] oola Neruda: when you learn to speak the "language" then do you have the insights that will allow you to be an artist within it
[13:34] herman Bergson: They gonna analyse that definitely
[13:35] Paula Dix: a friend thats a painter says art isnt things, but way of doing things, you make food with art, or anything. He mentions a museum in sweden i think where a lotus race car is shown as art
[13:36] herman Bergson: Well one theory is that not the object is art, but that the beholder makes it art by calling it so
[13:36] oola Neruda: it may be a metaphor but it is also an actual language... kandinsky wrote two books on that... and when you teach art theory you learn it too
[13:36] Paula Dix: oh, herman, i saw recently on tv about a research where when you see beautiful things, the relaxation mechanisms in brain are activate, but when you see ugly, it activates the area that says "run"!
[13:36] Daruma Boa: today its the meaning, the statement u wanna give with the art
[13:37] Daruma Boa: it doesnt have to be beautiful
[13:37] herman Bergson: is strongly associated with an experience of pleasure
[13:37] Paula Dix: oola thats related to semiology, right?
[13:37] oola Neruda: piet mondrian and josef albers are speaking the language but very analyticly...
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:37] Paula Dix: yes, beauty is just one of the elements
[13:37] oola Neruda: i do not know the word semiology
[13:37] Paula Dix: semiotics, same thing
[13:37] herman Bergson: The problem with the language metaphor is that you dont know where and how it applies..
[13:38] herman Bergson: does art have a grammer for instance?
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: hmm
[13:38] Paula Dix: lol some art does :)))
[13:38] herman Bergson: and what is the grammar of medieval art in relation to the grammer of Mondriaan?
[13:38] oola Neruda: when the urinal was presented as art then it was the current set of SOCIETIES requirments for a work to be called art...
[13:39] herman Bergson: To play with this language metaphor suggests that arts has some universal attributes like natural languages have all over the world...
[13:39] oola Neruda: medieval is flat spaces, line and local color, not much interest in balancing a composition and an empahasis on didacticism
[13:39] herman Bergson: words, idiom, grammar, syntax....meaning
[13:39] Paula Dix: i guess there are always two ways of seeing, that from the period the work was made and the other from outside that period. We see the religious painting from renaissance as Big Art, but for them it was more like ads
[13:40] Daruma Boa: or better the artists wants to^
[13:40] Daruma Boa: of course, art want to say something
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Paula...
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: that is very true
[13:40] oola Neruda: mondrian is speaking about the weights of color...and what proportions of a given intensity or value of color will balance a spot of another one
[13:40] herman Bergson: like artists were primarely craftsmen in those days
[13:40] Paula Dix: or the greek and roman statues in white marble, while they painted them
[13:41] Paula Dix: yes oola, mondrian and that mexican who makes only fat people :))
[13:41] oola Neruda: he broke it down to the simplest shape, a square, so that the shape does not distrat from the measurment of weight of color
[13:41] Paula Dix: sorry, modigliani
[13:41] oola Neruda: modigliani specialized in stylized nudes
[13:41] oola Neruda: not fat people
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:41] Paula Dix: mondrian is all about composition
[13:42] Paula Dix: the mexican makes fat people
[13:42] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:42] Paula Dix: modigliani thin people
[13:42] Qwark Allen: 12000 years ago, beeing fat woman was the sexiest thing
[13:42] herman Bergson: My personal opinion is that only neurobiological research will reveal the effects of art on the human being...and why it attracts him
[13:42] oola Neruda: albers used squares for the same the emphasis would be on the color theory... he was intersted in spatial qualities of color as opposed to mondrian's weight of color
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: and still in some cultures yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Yes..skinny women are the proof that you cant feed them well :-)
[13:43] oola Neruda: i hope that answered your question of medieval language vs mondrian
[13:43] Paula Dix: found him, Fernando Botero
[13:43] Qwark Allen: music is not a art that belong only to human specie
[13:43] Daruma Boa: to whom else?
[13:43] Qwark Allen: it is ancestral way of emotinal comunication
[13:43] Paula Dix: and then there is that one with the white painting
[13:43] Qwark Allen: whales for example
[13:43] Daruma Boa: true
[13:44] Qwark Allen: and some other mamals
[13:44] Paula Dix: but whales are singing or talking??
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes indeed whales are superior composers..never sing the same song twice
[13:44] Paula Dix: it can look to us as singing, like birds, while for them its talking
[13:44] Qwark Allen: that is why, so universal language
[13:44] Daruma Boa: *GIGGLES* :)~~~~
[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: even the flower pots are fat!!!
[13:44] herman Bergson: a remarkable phenomenon of animal creativity
[13:44] Qwark Allen: whales do sing
[13:44] Qwark Allen: and have diferent songs and metric
[13:44] oola Neruda: that one..the white painting... was done when the atom was being split... taken down to the basic of basic's..the molocule or electrons or ... wave... so the white painting tried to break down the elements in a painting to basics....
[13:44] Qwark Allen: they are cute
[13:44] herman Bergson: there is the language metaphor again....
[13:45] Paula Dix: maybe they wont repeat because its talking, we never talk the same
[13:45] herman Bergson: ^_^
[13:45] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:45] Qwark Allen: always
[13:45] Paula Dix: lol i have a singing whale on our home :)))
[13:45] herman Bergson: It suggests that the work of art has a meaning....
[13:45] oola Neruda: the square ...basic shape.... white ...basic color..... smooth ... basic texture... no line ...
[13:45] oola Neruda: etc
[13:45] Daruma Boa: of course it has
[13:45] herman Bergson: some works have indeed, but all???
[13:45] Paula Dix: oola, and when people dont know about why that painting is all white?
[13:45] oola Neruda: the language, Herman...the language
[13:45] Daruma Boa: no nt the beautiful^^
[13:46] Daruma Boa: everything is art, which has a meaning
[13:46] oola Neruda: they are not looking at it in terms of the time and place where it was made.. and applying their knowledge of the language
[13:46] Daruma Boa: joseph beuys said that
[13:46] Paula Dix: lol Daruma, my friend says "all is art" :)))
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well often the beholder discovers more meaining in a work of art than the maker ever thought of..:-)
[13:46] Daruma Boa: hes right
[13:46] Hello: Ze Novikov donated L$100. Thank you very much for supporting us, it is much appreciated!
[13:46] Daruma Boa: everyone can do
[13:47] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true of almost any art i think
[13:47] oola Neruda: that is another issue... for the artist to evoke reactions
[13:47] Paula Dix: thats what i think, its much more something between each person and the work
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: yse
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: also like poetry
[13:47] herman Bergson: another concept of art...
[13:47] Paula Dix: like a sunset... its not art, it just happens, we see the art in it
[13:47] oola Neruda: what about artifacts
[13:47] herman Bergson: That is the difference...
[13:47] oola Neruda: items... beautiful many times... found in archeological sites
[13:47] Paula Dix: duchamp made his Ready Mades in this sense
[13:48] oola Neruda: like king tut
[13:48] CONNIE Eichel: oops, sorry, i must go, sorry :)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:48] Daruma Boa: bye connie
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: connie
[13:48] Ze Novikov: bb
[13:48] Qwark Allen: some years ago i`ve find a sewer cap. now it`s at my living room , and looks like a chinese letter
[13:48] Qwark Allen: nice iron piece
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: how big is it?
[13:48] herman Bergson: soem hold that a primairry condition of something to be called art is that it is an artefact...manipulated by a human in whatever way
[13:48] herman Bergson: thence..a sunset isnt ever art
[13:48] oola Neruda: duchamp was saying that the way to look at the object is shape, texture, volume, mass, rhythm...blah blah
[13:49] Paula Dix: yes, you can get a kitchen utensil and put in the living and then its art
[13:49] oola Neruda: not "prettiness"
[13:49] Qwark Allen: 0,5 meter
[13:49] Qwark Allen: 0.25
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:49] Qwark Allen: 0,15
[13:49] Qwark Allen: usually people ask where i bought it
[13:49] Qwark Allen: eheheh
[13:49] oola Neruda: what about artifacts
[13:49] herman Bergson: Some cleaners forgot to take that buckets and brooms in a gallery..visitors regarded it as artworks,,
[13:49] Paula Dix: lol
[13:49] Qwark Allen: 0.5x0,25x0,15
[13:49] oola Neruda: or primitive art... or folk art... or outsider art...
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: all art
[13:50] oola Neruda: african art...
[13:50] Paula Dix: yes, all is art indeed
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: different schools
[13:50] Qwark Allen: and really looks like chinese letter
[13:50] oola Neruda: i do not believe all is art
[13:50] Daruma Boa: oh must go also
[13:50] Paula Dix: bye!
[13:50] Qwark Allen: it`s the perspective and the meaning
[13:50] oola Neruda: baiee
[13:50] herman Bergson: I htink ..most important criterium is: made by man
[13:50] Daruma Boa: herman have beautiful holiday.
[13:50] Paula Dix: and the sunset??
[13:50] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:50] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: not here thursday???
[13:50] herman Bergson: Ok too :-)
[13:50] Daruma Boa: we will see us in september again^^
[13:51] Daruma Boa: no thurday i am at the theatre
[13:51] herman Bergson: we sure will
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:51] Daruma Boa: bye
[13:51] oola Neruda: decorative art...functional art
[13:51] Ze Novikov: bye
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: see you sooon anyway
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:51] oola Neruda: commercial art
[13:51] Paula Dix: why not all is art, oola?
[13:51] oola Neruda: illustration
[13:51] oola Neruda: herman said it... it needs to be made by man....
[13:51] Ze Novikov: or industrial design
[13:51] oola Neruda: one might say he interperates
[13:51] herman Bergson: As I said in the beginning...this is gonna be an endless debate ...:-)
[13:51] oola Neruda: yes Ze
[13:52] Paula Dix: there is a guy here who gets pieces of trees and take to museums
[13:52] Paula Dix: highly appreciated
[13:52] oola Neruda: that is like the urinal
[13:52] Paula Dix: well the urinal is man made :)))
[13:52] oola Neruda: what about environmental installations, happenings, conceptial art
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes...are is created by the art critics, museums etc.
[13:52] Paula Dix: i think it is art when you look at it with art eyes
[13:53] Paula Dix: no matter what is the thing
[13:53] oola Neruda: that is a good point herman... when art becomes only a product to be bought and sold...
[13:53] oola Neruda: advertized, promoted....
[13:53] oola Neruda: like a box of cereal
[13:53] Paula Dix: exact
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Paula....that is the opinion that the beholder 'creates' the art in the object
[13:53] Paula Dix: things become art and are demoted from being art all the time
[13:53] Qwark Allen: i`m uploading my sewer art
[13:53] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:54] Paula Dix: this shows the idea of classification is falible
[13:54] Paula Dix: if this word exist :))
[13:54] oola Neruda: and the artist is prevented from evolving his work ... seeing things in a new way...because the gallery has a contract that says he will furnish them with... x ... paintings... and they know what sells
[13:54] oola Neruda: jackson pollock had that problem
[13:54] herman Bergson: which means that the specific response of the central nervous system may be an indication about the quality of an object
[13:54] Paula Dix: lol herman rezz the thing i sent yo
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] Qwark Allen gave you Qwark art.
[13:54] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:54] Ze Novikov: the Qwark International Museum of Sewer Art
[13:54] Qwark Allen: *~*~rofl*~*~
[13:54] oola Neruda: and he could not even give his wife a ptg for her birthday
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:54] oola Neruda: the gallery confiscated it...
[13:55] Paula Dix gave you Duchamp - Fountain - 1917.
[13:55] Paula Dix: perfect Qwark :))
[13:55] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: fits with the garbage can school of art here in usa
[13:55] herman Bergson: sorry ....too many prims, Paula
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:55] Qwark Allen: got to go
[13:55] Qwark Allen: cya soon
[13:55] oola Neruda: baiee quark
[13:55] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:55] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark..
[13:55] Qwark Allen: cya oola, ze, justine, paula
[13:56] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:56] Paula Dix: lol ok, its just the Fountain i made for a place called Primtings here
[13:56] oola Neruda: pictographs and petroglyphs... or cave paintings
[13:56] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:56] Paula Dix: bye!
[13:56] Paula Dix: this one is an Art Detector. this guy put these things on a museum and people went around pushing them
[13:56] Justine Rhapsody: ((sorry I am not keeping up here, lots of RL distractions))
[13:57] herman Bergson: We understand Justine :-)
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok....
[13:57] oola Neruda: who made it... what was it used for... when was it made... is it still being used for the same thing it was made for... where is it kept then/now...skilled artist or unskilled... etc
[13:57] Ze Novikov: I am off to RL ty herman and everyone a wonderful refreshing summer....
[13:57] oola Neruda: you too ze
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:58] herman Bergson: to put an end to and endless debate, which as such is a nice artistic paradox...I want to thank you all for your participation :-)
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: i am pretty sure will be her thursday
[13:58] Paula Dix: :)))
[13:58] oola Neruda: michaelangelo was a commercial artist...
[13:58] Paula Dix: exact
[13:58] herman Bergson: yes...great illustrator, oola ^_^
[13:59] Paula Dix: imagine in 500 years people all fascinated by some of ours tv ads :))
[13:59] herman Bergson: some are real masterpieces..\
[13:59] Paula Dix: sure :)
[14:00] Paula Dix: its all about how you look at them
[14:00] Paula Dix: i love a tv show that shows tv ads from around the planet
[14:00] Paula Dix: i dont know the things being sold, so its just the film for me
[14:00] herman Bergson: yes...when you focuss on the graphic design characteristics for ads become fascinating
[14:01] Paula Dix: i like a lot video art
[14:01] Paula Dix: without stories
[14:01] herman Bergson: I am not such a video lover....
[14:02] Justine Rhapsody: I agree about some of the ads!
[14:02] Paula Dix: i have a history of art teacher that says theories are nice and we should learn them, but we cant forget that art is also about fruition
[14:02] Paula Dix: again, there is such word in english??
[14:02] herman Bergson: Sometimes when you see what is called art, you ar enot sure whether you look at something profound or just make it pull a leg...
[14:03] Paula Dix: yes :)))
[14:03] oola Neruda: then ask who did it
[14:03] oola Neruda: and find out about them
[14:03] Paula Dix: but that doesnt have to mean anything
[14:03] oola Neruda: right
[14:03] Paula Dix: i mean, something you disliked suddleny become good because of who made it?
[14:03] herman Bergson: and you thjink they'll give an honest answer oola...:-)
[14:03] Paula Dix: lol
[14:03] oola Neruda: oh i see what you are saying
[14:03] herman Bergson: I have seen too many art students and their work :-)
[14:04] oola Neruda: i was refering to all of history of art
[14:04] Paula Dix: a drawing teacher says we should never trow out what we do, even if hated
[14:04] oola Neruda: and no... a lot of wannabes... just blow a lot of hot air... and haven't a clue
[14:04] Paula Dix: because with time we can see good things there
[14:04] oola Neruda: i agree with your teacher paula
[14:04] oola Neruda: i cannot believe what i learned by getting out old drawings
[14:05] Paula Dix: i think its the same, someone can be a great artist without any training
[14:05] Paula Dix: lol for me all i do looks bad :))))
[14:05] Paula Dix: i have to wait some years :)
[14:06] herman Bergson: produce bad things consistently may be seen as an art too :-)
[14:06] Paula Dix: like that thing of putting a monkey to paint, or a child, then ask critics to evaluate
[14:06] oola Neruda: there are a few that made it without training...but i think the judgement came externally... and they were not all trying to be
[14:06] Paula Dix: and then laugh at them
[14:06] Paula Dix: that makes no sense, because the work can be good even if without intention
[14:06] oola Neruda: that shows a lack of understanding about art
[14:07] oola Neruda: good? there we need a long long discussion..what is good art
[14:07] herman Bergson: it is a supposition indeed that an work of art should have a meaning other than being itself
[14:07] Paula Dix: exact,,, the critic may have liked it no matter where it came from
[14:07] oola Neruda: eva hess's work was about the evolution of the picture plane in the history of art
[14:08] Paula Dix: and the meaning change from place to place, time to time, people to people, so it cant be absolute in judging it
[14:08] herman Bergson: yes...and then the new dimension oola brings up...the difference between good and bad art...really a fun one :-)
[14:08] oola Neruda: and if you looked at it another way... you will miss the most important part of it
[14:08] herman Bergson: enough for two extra days of debate..without sleep :-)
[14:09] Paula Dix: lol i like Goombrich saying that goes "there is no bad art, only people that cant understand this or that wokrs"
[14:09] oola Neruda: freida kahlo was about her emotions... and to look at her art without realizing might think she was not skilled
[14:09] oola Neruda: i agree with goombrich
[14:09] Paula Dix: ah, yes! there is art that need the meaning to make sense, like conceptual
[14:10] herman Bergson: It is always a terrific argument to claim that the beholder of your work just doesnt understand always and you are alwys right ^_^
[14:10] oola Neruda: or religious art
[14:10] Paula Dix: yes
[14:10] Justine Rhapsody: :)
[14:10] oola Neruda: which can be taken for illustration
[14:10] Justine Rhapsody: I look forward to getting the rest of this chat log and reading it, I missed so much
[14:11] oola Neruda: because of it's didacticism
[14:11] Paula Dix: yes, like tellling what kind of art is "higher" than others
[14:11] herman Bergson: dont make bad looking just dont understand your own artwork yet....:-)
[14:11] Paula Dix: lol yes!!!
[14:11] Paula Dix: i guess its that it doesnt came out as i intended, so i dislike
[14:11] Justine Rhapsody: who can
[14:11] Justine Rhapsody: lol, I am envious of anyone who can make art
[14:11] oola Neruda: for me, personally, art is a journey of searching... and also a catharsis
[14:12] Paula Dix: but thats not the work fault :))
[14:12] Paula Dix: ah, catharsis i guess a better work in english than my "fruition"
[14:13] herman Bergson: Well..there are examples of painters who claimed not to make art at all..and their work wasnt recognized as art either...untill later.....all of a sudden someone says it is art....and he became a great painter
[14:13] Paula Dix: lol justine me too!
[14:13] Paula Dix: true, and vice-versa
[14:13] oola Neruda: and yes... what is "high" art... and who is better... is a really really loaded question
[14:13] Paula Dix: ive read a book made by a woman from an university here, called Falence of Critics
[14:14] Paula Dix: she says critics, and any try on evaluating value on art is non-sense
[14:14] herman Bergson: well what is the sense of paying 22m million dollar for a painting of van Gogh???
[14:14] Paula Dix: lol i will one day try to translate that :)) make this my long term project
[14:14] oola Neruda: i agree... i feel a critic should be one who helps people understand what they are seeing
[14:15] Paula Dix: oh, and that japanese millionaire who wants to be buried with his van Gogh?
[14:15] oola Neruda: it is a money thing... purely about money...not art
[14:15] herman Bergson: Really?
[14:15] oola Neruda: an investment
[14:15] Paula Dix: i dont mind art having these prices. But its very very sad that the artist never get any
[14:15] oola Neruda: like you invest in diamonds or land
[14:15] herman Bergson: some do....
[14:16] oola Neruda: market is manipulated too
[14:16] herman Bergson: Picasso , men\
[14:16] Paula Dix: yes, but its rare... duchamp worked a lot rebuying and resolding his works :)
[14:16] Justine Rhapsody: sorry I must leave now, good bye all
[14:16] Paula Dix: bye!
[14:16] oola Neruda: baiee Justine
[14:17] oola Neruda: i should get going also
[14:17] herman Bergson: Well thank you all...I now go and see art in the SL6B sims if you dont mind :-)

Friday, June 19, 2009

8 How do I know that you have a mind too?

It is all Descartes' fault. He started it, but don't forget Locke and Hume. They are at least equally guilty. Guilty of what? Well..... the fact that it has become an epistemological problem: the existence of YOUR mind.

My mind is fine. I am absolutely sure I have on, but you all there? I wonder, how I can be certain about that. But let me begin by the beginning.

The quitessence of epistemology is the question : What can I know? What can I be 100% certain of? Descartes thought that he had found THE answer.

You just begin to doubt everything, really everything, nothing excluded. All you see, hear, feel, all can be imagination. And then he discovered that amidst all these doubts there always is ME.

Even when I dare to doubt, that I exist, I cant escape that doubting ME. Magnificent, there is always me. Me, who has to do the doubting. So I can NOT negate this ME. And thus he invented his Cogito, ergo sum.

I think, so I am. But the price he had to pay was high, because what else is there really except ME? I mean, about what else can I be absolutely certain except about my existence?

And thus was Descartes due to his own epistemological analysis trapped in solipsime. In fact the brother in arms of the problem of other minds. Solipsism holds the doctrine that only the self exists.

Descartes evades the solipsistic consequences of his method of doubt by the desperate expedient of appealing to the benevolence of God. Since God is no deceiver, he argues,

and since He has created man with an innate disposition to assume the existence of an external, public world corresponding to the private world of the "ideas" that are the only immediate objects of consciousness, it follows that such a public world actually exists.

Kind of a Deus ex machine, actually. I think we should look for a more contemporary solution of this problem. Stephen Law is in this matter a challenge.

He ends his chapter on this question with the statement: "Can I rationally defend my belief that there are minds , other minds than my own? I wouldn't know how to do that."

It surprised me, for we ran into this problem already before, when we discussed the question about my thinking computer. If you want to answer that question you must begin with accepting that you can have knowledge of other minds.

I said that Locke and Hume are guilty of this problem too. That is because they claimed that all we have is our private sensory experiences.

So, like Descartes they too say that we are imprisoned in our own mind. But does this really make sense and is Stephen Law right with his claim that there are no rational arguments against solipsism,

I dont think so. Let me take the short route and say that solipsim as well as the other minds problem are incoherent theories. And rational arguments? Let's start with common sense.

The problem for the solipsist is that he uses language to make his point, which in fact makes little sense from his point of view,

for to make an appeal to logical rules or empirical evidence the solipsist would implicitly have to affirm the very thing that he purportedly refuses to believe: the reality of intersubjectively valid criteria and a public, extra-mental world.

Something similar could be said about other minds. If we only know our own mind, where does the idea come from that there are more minds? Locke said, well, we conclude to that based on analogy.

But the problem with that appoach is that we make a generalization about all other human beings based on one obersvation,

and furthermore we dont see other minds at all, we just see human behavior. Basically this supposes that the mind is something different from the body,

or in a Cartesian perception even could exist without the body. But with refering to my former lecture on the biology of belief, it makes perfectly good sense to me to say, that there can't exist a mind without a body.

Or even more emphatically, that the body at least generates the mind, not to say that body and mind are identical and all mental statements are another way of talking about the body.

To be honest, I find this Other minds problem pretty uninteresting, however, it points our attention are fundamental epistemological questions, which means that everyone has to give his or her philosophical answer on the question why it is not so, that we are imprisoned in our private mind.

The Discussion

[13:30] herman Bergson: So much on this subject..
[13:31] herman Bergson: Thank you for your attention ^_^
[13:31] oola Neruda: that is a difficult one
[13:31] herman Bergson: In what way are you familiar with solipsim Justine?
[13:31] herman Bergson: You think so , oola?
[13:32] oola Neruda: yes... it seems related to conciousness.. and i am not even sure what that is... when you realize it has to come from the brain
[13:32] Justine Rhapsody begins to think.
[13:32] oola Neruda: it is confusing
[13:33] herman Bergson: well..the quintessence of this problem is our source of knowledge
[13:33] herman Bergson: empiricist and rationalist start with the private brain...
[13:33] Justine Rhapsody: well from what I have read all perceptions are created within the brain itself, though the eyes and ears are receivers.
[13:34] oola Neruda: didn't someone talk about instinct and sensory impressions?
[13:34] Justine Rhapsody: I don't know how to phrase the idea properly
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes...
[13:34] oola Neruda: and being born knowing things... vs. born not knowing things
[13:34] herman Bergson: The main point here is what ontology you uphold
[13:35] herman Bergson: The closest to comon sense is realism...the conviction that there exists an external world independent of the mind
[13:35] Justine Rhapsody: Sensory impressions are from the electromagnetic spectrum
[13:35] Justine Rhapsody: but the way we see objects etc is put together within our brain
[13:36] oola Neruda: essence
[13:36] herman Bergson: yes, Justine...there is no resemblance between the observed object and what happens in the brain
[13:36] herman Bergson: but there is a relation
[13:37] Justine Rhapsody: But since we agree upon many basics, and the insturments of science help us understand, we can believe in a world outside our minds.
[13:37] herman Bergson: that means..everytime we see a certain object..the same process is triggered in th ebrain
[13:37] oola Neruda: cause and effect
[13:37] oola Neruda: creating experience???
[13:38] Justine Rhapsody: and we have areas of the brain that put sensory impressions together, sight sound and touch,
[13:38] herman Bergson: to make sense we even have to postulate the existence of an outside world
[13:38] Justine Rhapsody: I wish I knew what i was talking about lol
[13:38] herman Bergson: It still makes sense what you say
[13:39] Justine Rhapsody: I have read articles, but my memory for detail is poor
[13:39] oola Neruda: because "others" react... with us.... doesn't that help to lead to a conclusion that they are independent of us
[13:39] oola Neruda: react to us
[13:39] oola Neruda: hmmm not necessarily
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes oola...I am really not so impressed about this other minds issue....
[13:40] herman Bergson: those other minds are just a matter of facrt
[13:40] herman Bergson: Hello Samuel
[13:40] oola Neruda: hello Samuel
[13:40] Justine Rhapsody: it must be one of the first lessons learned as a baby, the existence of others
[13:41] Samuel Okelly: hello every1
[13:41] Justine Rhapsody: hello Samuel
[13:41] herman Bergson: As you see make a crowd ^_^
[13:41] Samuel Okelly: :)
[13:41] herman Bergson: yes...Justine ..the development of babies is interesting...
[13:41] oola Neruda: i was thinking... to "realize" that other minds exist... in a similar way, can we not realize God exists... independantly of us
[13:42] herman Bergson: In the first few months they only grab what they see....when you hide it they forget about it
[13:42] herman Bergson: But after while....
[13:42] herman Bergson: when you hide the object in front of their eyes under a cloth, the baby will search under the cloth
[13:43] herman Bergson: it means that he reasons...even tho I dont see it the object is still there so let's grab it
[13:43] oola Neruda: even though i do not see it... it is still there
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes
[13:44] Justine Rhapsody: except with God there is much less evidence than for other human minds.
[13:44] herman Bergson: So the mind concludes in an early stage that there exists something outside and independent of the mind out there
[13:45] Samuel Okelly: behaviour as an expression of belief
[13:45] oola Neruda: that is a good way of puting it Samuel
[13:45] Justine Rhapsody: So it seems obvious that there are minds; then some children think everything has a mind the same as humans
[13:45] herman Bergson: Well..they have tried to explain the eistence of other minds by refering to behavior...
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes..children have a animistic period in their young life..
[13:46] herman Bergson: it is the intuitive thinking I refered to in my former lecture
[13:46] Samuel Okelly: can we proove other minds exist?
[13:47] Samuel Okelly: in fact, can we proove anything exists?
[13:47] oola Neruda: that questions scares and concerns me sometimes...
[13:47] oola Neruda: how to know
[13:47] herman Bergson: do we know there are other minds if we only know that we have a mind oursleves only
[13:48] Samuel Okelly: i agree oola
[13:48] Justine Rhapsody: We can believe the evidence of science
[13:48] herman Bergson: How can I deduce from my having a mind that there have to be other minds too?
[13:48] Samuel Okelly: and what precisely is that evidence justine?
[13:48] oola Neruda: interaction?
[13:48] oola Neruda: that is not enough proof
[13:49] Samuel Okelly: "interaction " assume an other
[13:49] herman Bergson: So if you take a solipsistic stand and start talking of other minds your theory becomes incoherent.
[13:49] oola Neruda: smiles... oh ... yes
[13:50] Samuel Okelly: maybe it highlights the limits of the scientific method alone
[13:50] Samuel Okelly: maybe it suggests that we need to take a broader more encompassing view of what it actually means "to know" anything?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes....I think you cant find a rockbottom proof....
[13:50] herman Bergson: but you can find intersubjectivity
[13:51] oola Neruda: in a way... it feels like kin of existentialism... in that "aloneness"... creating your own..whatevers
[13:51] herman Bergson: You have the social system of language..
[13:51] Justine Rhapsody: Well again I wish I knew more of what I am talking about - but the scientific proof for things like the earth being round, and the planets revolving around the sun - none of this have I experienced with my own senses, so I have to learn and believe.
[13:51] Samuel Okelly: i agree justine
[13:52] herman Bergson: No, Justine, you dont need to believe....
[13:52] Samuel Okelly: doesn't everything boil down to "belief"?
[13:52] oola Neruda: hmmmm ... there may be no way to escape it... you have a point Samuel
[13:52] herman Bergson: If you knew the principles , axoms etc. you could deduce these facts from them
[13:53] herman Bergson: There is nothing wrong with believing...
[13:53] Samuel Okelly: to hold that my sensory info applies to the actual exterior reality of an objective world is an act of faith
[13:53] herman Bergson: The fact is that the beliefs you hold can be regarded as pragmatic tools to deal with reality
[13:54] oola Neruda: our sences not give us the evidence for some other things tho... like love...
[13:54] herman Bergson: Depends on how you define faith , samuel
[13:54] oola Neruda: so it has to be more than just sensory
[13:54] herman Bergson: You could define it as: pragmatic choice
[13:55] Samuel Okelly: here i use it to be synonymous with "belief"
[13:55] herman Bergson: It is not some supernatural step you take or something like that
[13:55] Justine Rhapsody: choosing what to believe - without education, most people would have no idea what to believe, except for their own pragmatic observations.
[13:55] Samuel Okelly: fides et ratio
[13:55] herman Bergson: is a common result of how the central nervous system operates
[13:56] Justine Rhapsody: You mean learning by experience?
[13:56] oola Neruda: i worked with blind children... and there is a difference between a child born blind and one that becomes blind later
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes, Justine
[13:56] Justine Rhapsody smiles.
[13:56] oola Neruda: their "observations" are different
[13:57] herman Bergson: of course, oola
[13:57] oola Neruda: and their actions are too because they do not see...
[13:57] oola Neruda: like they do not turn their head or reach... which leads to crawling... etc
[13:57] oola Neruda: affects development... also their entire view of the world
[13:57] Samuel Okelly: we can not assume “understanding” as being an inevitable result of “observation”
[13:58] oola Neruda: yes... as i said... like love...
[13:58] herman Bergson: what do you mean Samuel
[13:59] Samuel Okelly: simply that we observe does not always mean that we understand what is observed
[13:59] Samuel Okelly: too err is human ;-)
[13:59] herman Bergson: no..but that is the way of science....
[13:59] herman Bergson: you observe....put your observations in a context...and test your theory..
[14:00] Samuel Okelly: that too can be monumentally wrong
[14:00] oola Neruda: if i were doing it alone... my theory, tested time and time again would be that the earth is flat
[14:01] Justine Rhapsody: I am afraid mine would be as well :)
[14:01] herman Bergson: That a theory proofs wrong is only a good thing...the basics of falsificationism:-)
[14:01] Samuel Okelly: so we must be aware of our ignorance?
[14:01] herman Bergson: So, oola, test your theory that the earth is flat...walk to the edge :-)
[14:01] oola Neruda: that is actually the way it is done... you keep testing until you find that one possible instance where the theory is not correct
[14:02] Samuel Okelly: or at the very least the possibility of our ignorance
[14:02] oola Neruda: as long as you don't find can keep using it
[14:02] herman Bergson: the pragmatic way, oola :-)
[14:02] oola Neruda: :-)
[14:03] oola Neruda: you always have to assume that there might possibly be an exception
[14:03] Samuel Okelly: doesnt that define what is meant by "reason" ?
[14:03] herman Bergson: So when I have a theory about reality, that other minds exist independent of my own mind and it works, doesnt lead to contradictions, ,I am quit satisfied
[14:04] herman Bergson: By reason you can mean, that you accept and apply the basic rules of logic
[14:04] Samuel Okelly: yeah
[14:05] Samuel Okelly: whilst not denying the necessity and ultimate reality of "faith"
[14:05] herman Bergson: you mean the confidence you have in logic, samuel?
[14:06] Justine Rhapsody: I would like someday to know the basic rules of logic, as I have forgotten what I learned of them in college.
[14:06] Samuel Okelly: that we are forced to acknowledge that the role of belief at the core of our knowledge
[14:06] herman Bergson: Hmm...let me see
[14:07] Samuel Okelly: we assume a belief in the premise of the argument
[14:07] herman Bergson: Most important rule is that something can not be true and untrue at the same time
[14:07] Justine Rhapsody nods
[14:07] oola Neruda: argument... is a key word here
[14:07] oola Neruda: rather than proof
[14:08] oola Neruda: can we ever really have proof
[14:08] Samuel Okelly: sure, we believe the truth value of any statement
[14:08] herman Bergson: we dont need to believe in premisses...they can be about observed facts
[14:08] oola Neruda: i observe the earth is flat
[14:08] Samuel Okelly: as i say herman, what we "observe" is not always "fact"
[14:08] herman Bergson: no...not just believe...we know...
[14:10] herman Bergson: of course not...we establish facts by scientific reasearch for instance
[14:10] Samuel Okelly: all what we "know" is ultimately a belief in something
[14:10] oola Neruda: that thing about language
[14:10] Samuel Okelly: belief is at the core of our being
[14:10] oola Neruda: how language affects what we "see"
[14:10] oola Neruda: observe
[14:10] oola Neruda: because you cannot scientifically prove everything...
[14:11] herman Bergson: I could say that choice is the core of our being...
[14:11] oola Neruda: abstracts especially
[14:11] Samuel Okelly: choice presumes a reality
[14:11] herman Bergson: we choose to stick to some theory, because it works...
[14:11] Samuel Okelly: a "belief" in a reality"
[14:12] herman Bergson: no....we choose a theory that has as axiom that there exists an external world, a reality
[14:12] herman Bergson: it is not a belief, it is a cognitive step we take
[14:12] Samuel Okelly: i disagree
[14:12] Samuel Okelly: we can "claim" anything
[14:13] Samuel Okelly: because it is not disproven does not render it "true"
[14:13] oola Neruda: hubble said the different shapes of galaxies demonstrate different phases of the evolution of a galaxy....
[14:13] oola Neruda: people believed that for a long time
[14:13] herman Bergson: as long as it is effectivew, supports our survival, we will do so indeed
[14:14] Samuel Okelly: a cognitive step we take does not establish proof
[14:14] oola Neruda: like hubble
[14:14] herman Bergson: they did not believe...they took it as scientific fact...untilll this fact is falsified
[14:14] oola Neruda: right
[14:14] oola Neruda: exactly
[14:14] herman Bergson: proof isnt interesting at all...
[14:15] herman Bergson: I mean...what means proof?
[14:15] herman Bergson: proof like a mathematical deduction?
[14:15] herman Bergson: or proof in the sense: see it with your own eyes?
[14:15] oola Neruda: neither one is reliable
[14:16] oola Neruda: they are placeholders
[14:16] Justine Rhapsody: mathematics is reliable, once a person learns to understand it.
[14:16] Justine Rhapsody: placeholders is interesting oola
[14:16] herman Bergson: what we do is supporting a theory untill it is is falsified
[14:16] oola Neruda: yup
[14:16] oola Neruda: we believe
[14:17] Samuel Okelly: For thousands of years scientists of the day claimed the earth was flat (all the evidence pointed to that) And so everyone believed it was flat. Later, some ppl questioned this and claimed the earth was spherical,, (some believed this to be true and some did not). Now, most ppl believe the earth to be spherical. During this time, has the earth changed in shape because of our axioms?
[14:17] oola Neruda: we put our faith in it
[14:18] herman Bergson: What is your point here, Samuel?
[14:18] Samuel Okelly: fides et ratio
[14:18] oola Neruda: faith in observation...that it is flat
[14:18] herman Bergson: Not the earth changed its shape, we changed our theory, because it proofed to be more effective
[14:19] Samuel Okelly: that ur "belief" did not establish objective fact
[14:19] herman Bergson: the new theory explained phenomena better than the old one
[14:19] oola Neruda: so it is not proof
[14:19] Samuel Okelly: ultimately everything IS a form of belief in something
[14:19] herman Bergson: "objective" fact is as uninteresting as proof
[14:20] herman Bergson: If you mean with belief: based on some sort of theory, I agree
[14:20] oola Neruda: theory = argument
[14:20] oola Neruda: locgical
[14:20] oola Neruda: logical
[14:20] Samuel Okelly: i would prefer "reason" rather than theory , but essentialy i agree
[14:21] oola Neruda: yes... i agree... reasong=
[14:21] oola Neruda: reason
[14:21] herman Bergson: Well...When we all agree it is a nice moment to dismiss class ^_^
[14:21] oola Neruda: lol
[14:21] Samuel Okelly: :)
[14:21] Justine Rhapsody: :)
[14:21] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation :-)
[14:22] Samuel Okelly: apologies again for my late arrival
[14:22] Justine Rhapsody: thank you
[14:22] oola Neruda: thank you for the work in preparing
[14:22] Samuel Okelly: i will look forward to catching up on the web
[14:22] herman Bergson: my pleasure...

Thursday, June 18, 2009

7b Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Supernatural beliefs, are not easily transferred because people tell us what we should think. Supernatural just means that what we believe is beyond the realm of scientific explanations.

It is more likely that our brains are designed in such a way that we naturally see structures and patterns in the world and that we understand the world by developing intuitive theories.

Besides that there is something in our biology that stimulates us to believe. Of course we can believe what others tell us, but in advance we are already inclined to believe that of which we think it is true.

To explain this we should be able to find a supernatural belief, which is present in most humans but is not a product of culture.

A question: Did you ever have had that feeling that someone is looking at you, that you are being watched and when you turned around you saw those staring eyes indeed?

[13:15] herman Bergson: Anyone?
[13:15] Pete Saxondale: Yes
[13:15] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:15] Daruma Boa: yes
[13:15] herman Bergson: ok..:-)

It is a special human ability to sense this, if it really a human ability is. About 9 out of 10 people claim that they can 'feel' that someone is looking at them, watching them. Let's call this special ability our supersense.

This is not something we learn our children, so where does it come from? Already Plato believed that our eyes sent some kind of energy to the objects to be able to see them.

A lot of us still believe that they penetrate the other with their eyes, or look deeply into the eyes of our beloved one. Some even still believe in the power of the 'evil eye'. In 1921 a Dr. Charles Russ published an article in the Lancet about experiments to measure the energy emission of the eye.

You could regard the belief in being watched as a supernatural belief, but a belief with a natural origin, based on a naive theory of visual perception. When you ask a kid to draw 'seeing' it most of the time draws an arrow from the eye to the object.

Most interesting , however, is that children respond in general much less positive, when you ask them, if they can feel that someone is watching them than adults. So our ability to feel the unseen looking eyes increases the older we get, it seems

An explanation can be that the older we get the more socially connected we become with the group. Eyecontact becomes an important social communication system. Children still have to learn not to stare at the lady with the silly hat.

The look of the other activates parts of the brains, the amygdala and ventral striatum, which are related to emotions in social exchanges. Your heartbeat may increase, or you may feel ashamed.

We develop this supersense even to such a level, that when we know that we are observed we behave more cooperative, social and honest . Some believe that their ancestors are watching them from the afterlife. And here you already see the advantage of this supersense for the group.

The supersense is characterized by beliefs and experiences, that makes us inclined to see hidden structures, patterns , energies and dimensions in reality. If we couldnt control these thoughts we would become psychotic or schizophrenic.

This control is related to dopamine, some substance in the brain. If you disturb the dopamine system things go wrong. Some see a relation with creativity. Artists often see all kinds of structures and relations in reality we dont see.

And some even balance at the edge of insanity or mental breakdown, loosing all control of their supersense: van Gogh, Beethoven, Byron, Dickens, Hemingway, Keats. All artists that suffered of psychotic periods.

What saves us from uncontrolled intuitive thinking is the frontpart of our brain: the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex (DLPC). It contains the short term memory, planning ability, ability to ignore irrelevant or distracting thoughts and actions and our ability to evaluate thoughts and actions in relation to a desired goal.

While the intuitive thinking, our supersense, is there from the begining, this other part of the brains develops during our lifetime: it becomes our conceptual-logical, analytical-rational, intentional and systematic power, while the intuitive thinking is natural, automatic, heuristic and implicite.

The supersense that we as adults experience is a remnant of the intuitive reasoning system of the child which wrongly comes up with statements that do not fit in the rational model of reality.

Some people claim that the supernaturalism of adults is the result of religious indoctrination of children. What I have said so far my show that there is clear evidence for the fact that this supernatualism spontaneously emerges from the way the brains operate.

Most adults hold supernatural beliefs. Don't you have that specal coin in your purse, which you wil never spend, because it brings luck? Or that perfume, that absolutely will seduce every man, or the urge to touch that specific spot or object before you continue, otherwise bad luck.....

Can we ever free ourselves from this irrationality? Why should we uphold such a way of looking at the world in this aera of reason and scientific explanation? Will mankind ever become reasonable? I dont think so...

But is reason the ultimate standard, the higher level of being human? I dont think so either. Evolutionary the intuitive thinking came before the development of our rationality. It is still obvious in developmental psychology.

And it gives us certian things that are unaccessible for rational analysis. It gives us a system of beliefs that unites the members of a group, based on sacred values. Not only religious values and ideas, but basic ones for a start.

Personal freedom, the integrity of our body, the right to live. Religion is a cultural next step in this matter.

Let me finish with one example. I enter a room and there are four supreme scientists. However, they are lethally ill. Their death would be a tremendous loss for society. They all need a transplant of some organ.

My body contains these healthy organs, so the doctor makes a calculation. I kill one to save four important lifes, he concludes That is the right decision. So no next class, friends :-(

Bye (^_^)

This lecture is based on chapter 9 and 10 of the book "Supersense: Why we believe in the unbelievable" by Bruce H. Hood (2009)

The Discussion

[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: oh boy
[13:28] Daruma Boa: ^
[13:28] herman Bergson: Bye (^_^)
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: lol not fair
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:29] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)
[13:29] Laila Schuman: intuition.... vs a moral decision? i do not see the link
[13:29] Daruma Boa: yw^^
[13:29] Pete Saxondale: Thank you.
[13:30] herman Bergson: What do you mean Laila?
[13:30] Laila Schuman: you talking about the brain and "sencing"...then you gave an example about organ transplant ... which is a moral type decision
[13:31] Laila Schuman: i do not see the link
[13:31] herman Bergson: The link is that the right to live can not dealt with by pure logic and rationality
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: was that the end of the lecture or the beginning of the next?
[13:31] herman Bergson: We just have a basic disgust of certain things
[13:31] Laila Schuman: one other thing...
[13:32] Pete Saxondale: Well, isnt' that like your opinion?
[13:32] Pete Saxondale: I mean to you that is irrational
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well..let me give another example..
[13:32] Pete Saxondale: It might not be to me
[13:32] Laila Schuman: i have worked with blind people... many people think that they have special sensory powers
[13:32] Laila Schuman: but it is just training... and experience
[13:32] Pete Saxondale: Right laila
[13:32] herman Bergson: The jacket of a ferocious serial killer is for sale....and I want to show off with it by wearing it
[13:33] Laila Schuman: and what artists see... is a result of training and interest
[13:33] Pete Saxondale: Ok
[13:33] Pete Saxondale: So what about the jacket?
[13:33] herman Bergson: Then Laila everyone, well trained with a special interest could become an artist
[13:33] Laila Schuman: we can sence someone looking at us... because we have developed awarenesses that we don't put into words...
[13:33] Daruma Boa: yes
[13:33] Daruma Boa: as joseph beuys says
[13:33] Pete Saxondale: Or we're just paranoid
[13:33] Daruma Boa: and myself^^
[13:34] Pete Saxondale: and only notice when we are correctly
[13:34] Laila Schuman: that is a long thing to reply to herman... could take weeks
[13:34] Pete Saxondale: paranoid
[13:34] Laila Schuman: but yes... training is a huge piece of it
[13:34] Daruma Boa: and the will to see
[13:34] Pete Saxondale: Right but synesthesia (sp) or something like it may come into play for artists
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: i think this is another thing of believing what we want to believe
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: no scientific proof
[13:35] Pete Saxondale: Seeing patterns and whatnot
[13:35] Daruma Boa: we ave to otherwise the world would be grey
[13:36] herman Bergson: the issue is that we have structure and patterns as defined by science
[13:36] Jangle McElroy: Regarding the ability to sense when we are being watched. I have seen an experiment where people queue to enter a theatre. Unknown to them, they are being watched by a group of people who sit behind a one-way miirror that completely hides them from those in the queue. A researcher asks the group to focus their attention on different people in the queue - one at a time for several seconds. The person in the queue who is being looked at senses something and looks around, but sees nothing. The research was conducted on live TV i nthe UK and validated by the audience who went to see the live programmme - they were the people in the queue :)
[13:36] herman Bergson: but there is no scientific proof thata I have the right to my body for instance
[13:36] Laila Schuman: really, believing... and when it comes to moral things etc. you could say the philosopher has no more proof than the person who is saying there is a got
[13:36] herman Bergson: Jangle the rules behind me
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: but how does that prove that they would not have turned aroound anyway
[13:37] Pete Saxondale: I would like to see a clip of that experiment.
[13:37] Jangle McElroy: Repetition proves
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: regardless of the focus
[13:37] Pete Saxondale: Statistically
[13:37] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:37] Qwark Allen: me to
[13:37] Jangle McElroy: Chance happens, repetition for 20-people in one go
[13:37] herman Bergson: What experiment Pete?
[13:37] Pete Saxondale: Well the theater queue
[13:38] Pete Saxondale: If that is real, then you'd have objective scientific proof of an extra sense, wouldn't you?
[13:38] Laila Schuman: i do not see God as necessarily being the result of people having these sensory "moments"...
[13:38] Pete Saxondale: I would think that would be kinda important
[13:38] Laila Schuman: you can discuss the existance of God in the same way philosophers logically come to conclusions
[13:39] Pete Saxondale: considering the fact that there hasn't been a single one that I know of that has conclusively proven anything remotely like that in the entire history of the human race.
[13:39] Jangle McElroy: afgree the research would need to be repeated, but it did work on live TV and the audience confirmed what had happened. It was interesting
[13:39] Laila Schuman: and a philosopher would be horrified to be compared to the "intuitive" sensing
[13:39] herman Bergson: True Pete....these experiments have been done..also recently...
[13:39] herman Bergson: what happened was this...
[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[13:40] herman Bergson: when people got feedback on whether they were looked at or not you got a significant results
[13:40] herman Bergson: if they didnt get the feedback it dropped to the normal 50% average
[13:40] Laila Schuman: i am sorry...but i think the foundation of the argument is a red herring
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: but someone in the line may have looked at thiem at the same time or they were looking for someone too
[13:40] Pete Saxondale: So doesn't that mean that the results are tainted?
[13:40] Pete Saxondale: Right?
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i think so
[13:41] herman Bergson: The fact that there is a mirror is already a disturbing factor..
[13:41] Pete Saxondale: I just wanna be clear.
[13:41] Pete Saxondale: True
[13:41] herman Bergson: people tend to look in the mirror and see others in the line looking too
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: there are many paranormal experiments going on at universities all the time
[13:41] herman Bergson: so I dont think that is a real test
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: and the answers just do not hold up much
[13:41] Daruma Boa: i think nothing can be tested "real"
[13:41] Jangle McElroy: problem with trying to describe things briefly ifs you don;t do the point justice. But basically the queue and the mirror weren;t the problem :)
[13:41] Daruma Boa: we would like to know everything;-))
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:42] Laila Schuman: and i don't think discussing "supernatural" in this way... is the way to approach the subject of God
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: but it would probaly kill us if we did
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:42] Pete Saxondale: Well, is that what we're discussing? God?
[13:42] Daruma Boa: could be yes
[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok....let's get back to the comment of Laila...
[13:42] Pete Saxondale: Ok
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: well we did start that way yes
[13:42] Laila Schuman: isn't that the question
[13:42] Pete Saxondale: ok
[13:42] Daruma Boa: and would be sooo boring 2 know everything
[13:42] herman Bergson: and back to what this is all about
[13:42] Daruma Boa: adam and eve^^
[13:43] herman Bergson: The question was: is it reanonable to believ ein God?
[13:43] Pete Saxondale: oh...
[13:43] Daruma Boa: yes
[13:43] Laila Schuman: is it reasonable to believe a LOT of things that philosophers say
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:43] herman Bergson: My thesis of today is that we have reasons indeed to accept this phenomenon is part of human nature....
[13:43] Laila Schuman: when you ask for emperical proof
[13:44] Pete Saxondale: Well, doesn't it depend on your definition of reason right?
[13:44] Pete Saxondale: I mean if you need laboratory empiricle "proof" then no
[13:44] Pete Saxondale: right
[13:44] Pete Saxondale: I mean as science defines reason
[13:44] Jangle McElroy: I guess that's splitting the debate point in 2 though? Like saying, 'yes it's reasonable to belive in god becasue believing in things is human' vs. ' Yes believing in god is reaosnable because it is possibly correct.'
[13:44] herman Bergson: I gave you lots of examples of empirical findings about the working of the brain
[13:45] fliegen so hoch wie moeglich: All Go
[13:45] herman Bergson: the interpretation of the value it has for society is an interpretation indeed..
[13:45] Laila Schuman: hmmmmm
[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: welcome back bergfrau
[13:45] herman Bergson: You still can be a zealous atheist or scienticist
[13:45] Pete Saxondale: And understand the reason behind believing in God?
[13:46] Pete Saxondale: I hear you there
[13:46] Pete Saxondale: if that's what you're saying
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes....I dont give it any ontological meaning
[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke gemma :o)
[13:46] Pete Saxondale: But that is different than believing that it is reasonable.
[13:46] herman Bergson: it is a n element of human behavior
[13:46] Pete Saxondale: to believe
[13:47] Pete Saxondale: Interesting
[13:47] Laila Schuman: approaching it from this direction feels like a fish oil salesman quoting things about the brain or body... all of which can be true but is it pertinant
[13:47] herman Bergson: would be unreasonable to try to abolish any such the atheist wants
[13:47] Jangle McElroy: Just the same as when a Japanese person says 'Yes' - it may mean 'Yes I understand what you've said' - rather than 'Yes, I agree with what you've said'
[13:47] herman Bergson: unreasonable because biological evidence tells us that it is part of our (social) system
[13:47] Pete Saxondale: Well, I dont' know about that. I think it's unrealistic for an atheist to want that
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well..people like Dawkins?
[13:48] Pete Saxondale: To say that it is unreasonable would infer that it is necessary to believe
[13:48] Pete Saxondale: and it isn't really, although there is a innate need
[13:48] herman Bergson: No ..not necessary...
[13:49] herman Bergson: it is an empirical fact that our brains tend to believe
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: so many opinions :_) and questions
[13:49] Daruma Boa: yes, and so less time^^
[13:49] Laila Schuman: i do not see that as an emperical fact
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true that oour brains tend to believe
[13:49] Pete Saxondale: An Empirical fact that the brain needs to believe in God?
[13:49] Laila Schuman: want to
[13:49] herman Bergson: No...
[13:50] Pete Saxondale: Or believe in general
[13:50] herman Bergson: As I said....Religion is a next cultural step...
[13:50] Daruma Boa: not god only. i think 2 believe in genreral
[13:50] Daruma Boa: general
[13:50] Pete Saxondale: I hear you
[13:50] herman Bergson: religion builds on on this tendency of the brains
[13:50] Pete Saxondale: Right
[13:50] Laila Schuman: doesn't belief come out of having questions... lots of questions to work through
[13:50] Pete Saxondale: I can dig that
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes have lots of questions and then believe everything is alive...
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: bu tjust look at teh commerciala that promise weight loss lolllo
[13:51] herman Bergson: the trees , a stone....they even talk to them
[13:51] Jangle McElroy: I guess it's partly down to what we wish to use as reference, other researchers say some people are predisposed i ntheir brain function to be beleivers - and it's not a social function
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: and so many believe
[13:51] Daruma Boa: true gemma^^
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:51] Daruma Boa: was good work then^^
[13:51] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:51] Qwark Allen: :-))
[13:52] herman Bergson: all human is distributed among individuals in an average way...Gauss curve like
[13:52] herman Bergson: so we have from extreme sceptics to convinced believers
[13:53] herman Bergson: They have done some tests..
[13:53] herman Bergson: sceptics are not so ealily inclined to see faces in a tv screen that only shows pixel noice...believers are more easily inclined to that
[13:54] herman Bergson: at the same time they did research on the dopamine..
[13:54] Qwark Allen: got to go
[13:54] Qwark Allen: cya thursday
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Including pictures of Christ or Mary in slices of burnt toast :)
[13:54] Daruma Boa: bye qwark
[13:54] Ze Novikov: off to Rl see you all soon bb
[13:54] Pete Saxondale: HA
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Bye Qwark
[13:54] herman Bergson: feeding dopamine to sceptics did work and on the believers it even had a negative effect
[13:55] Daruma Boa: bye ze greetings to rl^
[13:55] Qwark Allen: allways so interesting heerman
[13:55] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:55] Pete Saxondale: Negative?
[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok Qwark..thnx..
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes....they became more reluctant to see shapes in the pixel snow
[13:55] Pete Saxondale: With more dopamine?
[13:55] herman Bergson: yes
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: oh?
[13:55] Pete Saxondale: Well what's the conclusion
[13:56] Jangle McElroy: Do we have conclusions in a philosophy disucssion ? :)
[13:56] Pete Saxondale: Sorry HA
[13:56] Pete Saxondale: I meant what's the hypothesis
[13:56] Pete Saxondale: Or what can we conclude?
[13:57] Justine Rhapsody: time I need to leave bye :)
[13:57] Jangle McElroy: Bye
[13:57] Daruma Boa: bye justine
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: will wait til nexttime for more :-)
[13:57] Daruma Boa: bye gemma
[13:57] herman Bergson: I don tknow the details of that experiment, but it was a test to see to what extend dopamine influences these basic attitudes
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma :-)
[13:57] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye
[13:58] Jangle McElroy: Bye Gemma
[13:58] herman Bergson: be exact..the sceptics saw more shapes by using levadopa...
[13:58] herman Bergson: but the believers became more reluctant
[13:59] Pete Saxondale: Weird
[13:59] herman Bergson: yes it is..
[13:59] herman Bergson: but not only the dopamine systems in the brains are responsable for this behavior...
[14:00] herman Bergson: They are at the beginning at discovering the brains and their working
[14:00] Pete Saxondale: Well, It's been a good discussion. Gotta run!
[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you Pete
[14:01] Daruma Boa: bye peter
[14:01] Pete Saxondale: Thank you.
[14:01] herman Bergson: Bye
[14:01] Pete Saxondale: Bye everybody!
[14:01] Daruma Boa: think must leave too
[14:01] Daruma Boa: thank u herman
[14:02] herman Bergson: yw Daruma ^_^
[14:02] Jangle McElroy: Bye Daruma
[14:02] Daruma Boa: see u thursday
[14:02] herman Bergson: Let me know if Hope replies
[14:02] Jangle McElroy: Good night everyone
[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye jangle
[14:03] Laila Schuman: night
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke herman :o) es war wie immer sehr interessant!!!! danke für deine arbeit
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Yeah!!!!!
[14:03] herman Bergson: gerne gesehen, Bergy ^_^
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: bis bald und schönen aben dnoch :-)
[14:03] herman Bergson: Du auch :-)
[14:04] bergfrau Apfelbaum: danke :-)