1064: The Identity Theory...

From now on we'll discuss physicalism and leave the term "materialism" behind.Of course, physicalism is still based on a materialist ontology. We use the term because the classic ideas of materialism don't cover the findings of modern physics.
   
The question is, does this physicalism offer an adequate account of human beings? The chief objection to materialism / physicalism is that is doesn't offer an accounting of the mental life of human beings.
   
Minds are not physical is argued and consciousness is not a physical property.  So, physicalism is bound to be an inadequate view with regard to human beings.
 
The first answer to this objection is, what I already have referred to in earlier lectures: the identity theory. The basic idea is that words, that describe mental state X have the same referent as statements that describe physical state X.
 
In fact, we are quite used to that semantic phenomenon. When we visit our doctor and tell him that it hurts somewhere, he may come up with a nice Latin word which is the name of the physical inconvenience.
   
The basic idea thus is, that we can describe the same material in two or more different ways, like English and Spanish can describe the same situation.
   
A problem might be that we can talk about the mind and about neural events in the organism. These events we can see or monitor. Isn't the mind more than just these neural events and processes? Something like the idea that something is more than the total of its composing parts.
 
there come two answers to my mind. One is this: you come and visit me at the university. Never been there so I show you around, show you all buildings, teachers, students, etc.
   
Then you tell me how interesting everything was, but then ask: ok, I have seen a lot of things, but where is the university itself? Here you may conclude that some words do not refer to particular objects or entities but to a collection of objects.
   
So, when we talk about the mind, we are not referring to some specific entity, but to the total of experiences, thoughts, behavior, and the like of a human being. The mind is not a specific property of this total, but simply a term that refers to the total.
   
My second idea is, what we discussed in a previous lecture: does velocity exists? If you want to look for some entity that you can point out as velocity, then the answer is "no". There is no such thing as velocity.
   
Nevertheless, the police will stop you and present you with a speeding ticket because your velocity was too high. In other words, the term "velocity" does not refer to a specific entity, but to a relation between observable entities.
    
When you think of velocity, in a way, it looks like you are thinking of an immaterial entity, like when you talk about the mind you're easily inclined to think that it is some (im)material entity, although we are talking about relations between material entities.
   
This makes me think of a debate I once had with my brother. I must have been ten at the time. He claimed that he could see the wind and I denied that. You can't see the wind. What you see is the moving of leaves and branches of trees, was my opinion. The debate is still remembered in the family.
    
We never could come to a settlement of the issue, because my brother died when he was 52 and then his mind was gone too.
     
Thank you for your attention again....

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

 
[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that all made sense
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aw well
[13:25] herman Bergson: That is how we use words
[13:25] herman Bergson: Our primary intuition is tht every word refers to a concrete THING, something that exists
[13:26] herman Bergson: But it is more complex
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): going back to my game development. Ok everything there is virtual but game engines are at least simulating real objects so say for a basic character controller i have maybe a walk speed and a run speed variable, but unless attached to a player character they do no good cause they are then just values without application
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is what annoys me always when people talk about god.....as if it is a person/thing.....
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): same soes irl velocity is a mathematical value , a quantity
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that need to be applied to a physical object in motion
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the value is not physical but it represents a quantity
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats how i see it
[13:28] herman Bergson: so the mind is not a thing....not some object that you can find in a human body
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its just well math
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not a physical one
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that part is hard to define or explain
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): is ay its like data in a computer, electrical and also chemical signals
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and why people believe in spirit
[[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the computer is physical the data is not
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...all what happens between neurons and things like that is based on electricity
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:29] herman Bergson: so the mind is the electric currents between brain cells
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): unless u count the electrons making up the signal as physical things cause they are
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but by themselves don't represent anything
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): themselves
[13:30] herman Bergson: and it is the transfer of for instance hormones to all parts of our body
[[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all these things i refer to as properties
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...never knew life is that simple ^_^
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): properties of an object
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is the classic idea: we have objects and these objects have properties
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): however some properties i guess CAN be physical, for ex the feel of a surface, the friction is directly relayed to the physical surface and material of the object so a bit of middle ground there i say
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is how we have constructed our thinking
[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interesting
[13:34] herman Bergson: and indeed philosophers have  done a lot of work regarding analyzing properties
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but so many disagree
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:34] herman Bergson: and that is the point Bejiita....properties aren't physical....they are sensory data
[13:35] herman Bergson: there is a whole debate about the ontology of properties
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess, well but ice is slippery as a direct consequence of the very smooth surface
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but velocity is more mathematical,
[13:35] herman Bergson: Do properties exist independent of our perceiving them?
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or i don't know as said i say its a bit of a middle ground, never thought of it that way before until now
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): like the tree falling in the forest
[13:36] herman Bergson: A famous saying is the question: Does the tree that falls unseen in a forest make a sound?
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i got there first
[13:36] herman Bergson: Ahh you know the statement Gemma :-))
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in game engines u often have so called physics materials that determines the friction, bounciness ect of an object when they are applied to it
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes...you earned your A+ again today
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is an ongoing discussion
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and no answer
[13:38] herman Bergson: it is indeed...especially the ontological question
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:38] herman Bergson: speed is a property of objects only when measured for instance
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess so
[13:39] herman Bergson: that is in fact the reason to use the word physicalism in stead of materialism
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we need to get the property from the object
[13:39] herman Bergson: there is no property without the object
[13:39] herman Bergson: so it made a lot of philosophers wonder
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in a game engine u need to apply the property to the object but ijn real life its just there. u don't need to attach a speed value to an object to get it moving (unless its a motor controller for an electric scooter ect)
[13:40] herman Bergson: We could do a whole project on the phenomenon "property" in philosophy, I guess
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): put that down
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but a scooter also can move without running the motor if u push it
[13:41] herman Bergson smiles
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and then its like any real object
[13:41] herman Bergson: Good for the next project:-))
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well this is my views of things
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...today you learned how we use words and some semantics :-)
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as good as i can grasp them
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): all made sense
[13:42] herman Bergson: Prepares you fro a nice weekend, I guess
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thought of some stuff in a new way at least,
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that is the point
[13:43] herman Bergson: The weather is improving
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed Herman
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): here still a bit cold
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes, balcony premiere this weekend
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): out with the furniture from the basement
[13:43] herman Bergson: Going to 15 C soon
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: very interesting! thank you Herman and class
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): air can stil be a little cold indeed but getting warmer
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): and than back to 12C
[13:44] herman Bergson: So, thank you all again for your participation.....
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): here \
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): same
[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): took  my E Scooter to the floorball today and esp on way home wind was really cold
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): should be warmer  by 10 degrees now
[13:44] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
   



   

   
 

1063: I wrote a letter....

 Latest lecture Gemma brought an interesting article to our attention, that deals with our present theme. I'll present you two quotes from the article, that I found most telling.
    
Quote 1: "Modern neuroscience does not include any kind of mind-body dualism. It's not compatible with being a serious neuroscientist nowadays. I'm not a philosopher, but one succinct statement I like is saying, 'The mind is what the brain does.'
   
The sum of the bio-computational functions of the brain makes up 'the mind,'" said study senior author Nico Dosenbach, a neurology professor at Washington University School of Medicine. -End Quote-
    
This is an interesting remark in relation to the Mind-Body Identity theory. In what sense is talking about the brain the same as/ identical with talking about the mind and what all happens in our mind?
   
Quote 2: "Actually, the purpose of the brain is highly debated," Evan Gordon ,Washington University, said. "Some neuroscientists think of the brain as an organ intended primarily to perceive and interpret the world around us.
       
Others think of it as an organ designed to produce the best 'outputs' - usually a physical action - to optimize survivability and evolutionary fitness for any given situation." -End Quote-
   
Did you ever ask yourself: what is the purpose of my brain? Nevertheless when you ask the question, I would say that both answers apply and the article inspired my to write a letter to one of the scientists, Evan Gordon, mentioned in the article.
   
This is my letter: The reason I contact  you is because I want to present you some ideas about the mind-body relation, that came to my mind during the discussion in class.
    
The main issue in the debate is of course the existence of dualism. I guess that is sufficiently refuted, but in philosophical circles they are still debating on qualia and the special status of subjective statements, etc. However, let me give you an other explanation of the mind - body problem.
   
The main problem is the ontological status of mental states. The statement, that the mind is what the brain does, comes close to what I discussed with the students.  
   
Materialism changed its name into physicalism because we now know that there is more in the world than just the little particles Democritus had in mind.
    
Take for instance "velocity". What is the ontological status of velocity? When we say that it exists, what do we mean by existence?
    
There is not such a thing as velocity as an independent property and material objects (dualism).
   
Velocity exists as a relation between stationary object X and moving object Y. Scientifically you can do all kinds of things with it. You can measure it, influence it, change it, stop it and so on.

Does the mind exist? Yes, like you can not deny velocity as being real. But the mind is not a thing. The mind is the relation between the neurons and the energy that drives the communication between the neurons.
 
In other words, the mind is as real as velocity. You can't have velocity without at least two objects in relation to each other. You can't have a mind without at least two neurons  in relation to each other.

So, I came to the conclusion that the mind-body problem in philosophy is actually an outdated and obsolete problem from now on and this approach may be a simple explanation between what we call the brain and the mind. -END OF LETTER-
   
I sent this e-mail April 21 and I assume that this radiology professor is too busy to answer, but who knows  -give him some time-, maybe we'll get a reaction.
   
The point is, when you study all these philosophers discussing the mind - body issue in relation to materialism, they really can become so complex in their reasoning, that you wonder, does this really make sense?
   
Just assume that the mind IS what the brain does, then the real problem is our language. How the neuroscientist describes what he observes in the brain is a clear language where the words have clear denotations.
   
But then we have the philosophers. They talk about sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection. Are they talking about the same things as neuroscientists are?
   
We have to figure this out: those languages we use to describe our reality and the phenomenon that words can differ, but yet refer to the same material reality, like "the Morning star" and "the Evening star" refer to the same planet: Venus.
    
Thank you for your attention.....
   

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

 
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:20] herman Bergson: I wonder if I ever get a reaction on my letter :-)
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe they get confused about your therory
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): theory
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): they have to think about it
[13:21] herman Bergson: You think so, Beertje?
[13:21] Windows Bhalti: I believe that sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection are produced similarly to language in that the neurons elicit them.
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes of course
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:22] herman Bergson: What does that mean Windows?
[13:23] herman Bergson: The brain generates languages, yes
[13:24] Windows Bhalti: By the same token, the brain generates sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection
[13:24] herman Bergson: The question is the ontological status of these concepts....
[13:25] herman Bergson: Can we assume that they refer to the same thing as neuron A fired to neuron B?
[13:26] Windows Bhalti: Various areas of the brain light up when stimulated ...perhaps ontology might be considered voodoo?
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is new to me :-)
[13:27] Windows Bhalti: Me, too ...I'm winging it  :))
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well the closest analogy i have to the mind is like the operating system of a computer and how it stores and retrieves data and then u have sensors and stuff hooked up to it retrieving input from the outside world
[13:29] herman Bergson: Anyway...the basic idea is that psychological statements refer to the same as neuroscientific statements
[13:29] Windows Bhalti nods
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is what is known as the Identity Theory
[13:30] herman Bergson: First appeared in the 50s
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and the neurons a bit like the transistors of the CPU and bits in a hard drive flash drive. difference is computers are digital and cant actually feel anything. so indeed what makes us concious. Well we are not machines but living beings but here is where that alanogy fall apart, but its the closest i can get
[13:31] herman Bergson: But I have a feeling I interpreted the existence of the mind in another way
[13:31] Windows Bhalti: As an aside, I'm reading a book right now called "On The Neurobiology of Sin" by Lazar Puhalo
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess there is still more to the mind though
[13:31] herman Bergson: I related it to the ontological status of velocity
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): your description was also correct
[13:32] herman Bergson: Interesting title....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aa yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: but the term "Sin" only exists within a religious context
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:32] Windows Bhalti: Yes, ...the man is an Orthodox Catholic
[13:32] herman Bergson: So, what is the book about Windows?
[13:33] herman Bergson: I see, that explains the title
[13:33] Windows Bhalti: Basically what the title suggests and mostly about how to reconcile medicine and religion.
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is the problem.....
[13:34] Windows Bhalti nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: religion is just a cultural thing, while medicine is a material physiological matter unrelated to religious believes
[13:35] Windows Bhalti: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: So, the books discussing a peculiar combination of fields, which are scientifically unrelated
[13:36] Windows Bhalti: yes but could possibly be so ...potentially
[13:37] herman Bergson: They both fields are related for people that hold catholic beliefs, I guess
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Sin to me would be bad things, analogous to evil but in religion Sin sadly also refer to any kind of pleasure  like Sex, partying or being happy in general. Everyone should do nothing more then praying to god and conclude that they are miserable and worthless in comparison to god.
[13:37] herman Bergson: But for the rest of the world it is a somewhat useless discourse
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): otherwise they are regarded as sinners
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least in the more extreme cases
[13:38] herman Bergson: noo no  Bejiita.....
[13:38] herman Bergson: Sin is a creation of christian belief
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:38] herman Bergson: it has no reality
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to control people
[13:38] herman Bergson: Morality, our understanding of good and evil has reality
[13:39] herman Bergson: also a cultural matter, but the discourse about on what you base morality is quite different then
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as i say my analogue to the term Sin would be analogous to doing evil things, like what Putin is doing at the moment committing genocide on Ukrainians. The term sin however is created by religion
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but if i would define that word id say that what sin is. Do harm to others
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...we're a bit of topic now, so let's wait for a response to my letter. Maybe there will be one :-)
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:43] herman Bergson: Unless you still have a final question or remark.......
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): having sex for me is not evil (unless u are raping someone, Thats pure evil, cause then ur harming another person = sin)
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so do no harm to others and be happy i just say
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you alll again for your participation again....^_^
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well lets get happy with some fun game shall we
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:44] herman Bergson: And be happy :-))
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)

1062; In Search of an Answer.......

 Let's begin with tackling, maybe, the most difficult philosophical problem, that you can think of the Mind - Body problem. We have already covered quite a distance and come to the conclusion,
   
that the main assumption of materialism / physicalism is that every phenomenon in this world can be explained by the natural laws of physics and by the other sciences, like chemistry, biology, and so on.
 
This leads to the conclusion, that homo sapiens also should be explainable by the standards of modern science. Medicines have already proven that our body responds perfectly to all kinds of pills.
   
But what to do with our thoughts, feelings, and emotions? Can we explain those too using all knowledge and insights of science? That means, are there material descriptions and explanations for these features of homo sapiens?
   
The first headache already comes with the term "explanation". That we find neurophysiological correlates of all kinds of brain activity with emotions, feelings, sensory input, etc can hardly be understood as an explanation of these phenomena.
   
Then there is the second problem, which I already referred to in an earlier lecture: we assume that man is like nature in that he consists of the same materials that are studied by physics and natural science.
 
This should lead to a complete account of what a homo sapiens is, but the term "materialism" isn't tenable anymore for modern physics has shown that there is more than just matter. The line between matter, energy, and force is anything but sharp.
 
This changed the term "materialism" into "physicalism". The word"physicalism" seems more flexible. It merely suggests that man, whatever he is, can be described adequately with terms and concepts used by the science of physics.
   
Sounds good but here comes the bummer. We all will assert that we have a mind. It is really something: I think so I am Descartes already concluded. He made it easy for himself by postulating that the mind is a substance on its own.
   
No empirical proof for that, but whatever. It explains the situation. What explanation would a physicalist suggest? Where and how do we find a physical explanation for mental terms?
 
Several answers are possible. The first is the answer, which I chose to graduate in philosophy in 1977. My starting point was the essay "The 'Mental' and the 'Physical'" first appeared in  1958.
   
Herbert Feigl (1902 - 1988) was a prominent philosopher who developed a theory of mind-body identity in the mid-20th century.
   
His mind-body theory was a type of physicalism, which holds that mental states are identical to physical states in the brain.
 
According to Feigl, mental states are not separate entities from physical states, but rather they are identical to them. He argued that mental states can be reduced to physical states in the brain and that there is a one-to-one correlation between them.
   
I must confess that I have to study some more on Feigl's ideas, now that I am revisiting his ideas. What I find in the literature is not exactly, what is stored in my memory.
   
What is meant by a one-to-one correlation between between the mental and the physical is, that statements concerning the experience of pain can be explained by the firing of certain neurons in the brain having the same denotation.
    
I mean, when you talk about a piece of rock and a stone, the two words have the same denotation: that material object in your hand, like I said in the previous lecture:
 
the statement "dopamine and oxytocin are measured in the blood of person X" has the same denotation as the statement of person X "I am in love", namely his physical constitution at that moment.
    
I have to look deeper into this issue. I always regarded it as a semantical issue. Well, I'll keep you informed. I have to look more into this matter.
    
Thank you for your attention....
 

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

 
 [13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Maybe the article of Gemma is a great help
[13:26] herman Bergson: The main point here is that statement A (about mental states) and statement B (about physical states) have the same denotation
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not sure but adds to the issue
[13:26] herman Bergson: I'll defenitey have a look at it....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But most of the time, when you see such announcements in the press, it is more air than substance
[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it looks like science is definitely making progress in discovering  the physical and mental working together
[13:27] herman Bergson: A mind body nexus.....
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i guess its like with a computer that the mental stuff alanogous to data is caused by physical  states of the brain just like with the physical state of a CPU, transistors changing state and in the brain chemical signals fore between neurons to create the mind
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats hwo i imagine it works sort of
[13:28] herman Bergson: Just listen to what you say Gemma!!!!!
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:28] herman Bergson: the physical and mental working together
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:28] herman Bergson: That implies two entities
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bad idea i guess
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the mental part is the data and the physical part is like the transistors/neoruns changing state
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): neurons
[13:29] herman Bergson: it implies that the mental has some kind of existence next to the physical
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that;s how i imagine it works
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not materialistic
[13:29] herman Bergson: indeed
[13:30] herman Bergson: But....!
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but
[13:30] herman Bergson: Take for instance the concept of SPEED or VELOCITY
[13:30] herman Bergson: We can say that VELOCITY exists...we can observe it...
[13:31] herman Bergson: but for it to exist you need other objects...a stationary one and a moving one
[13:31] herman Bergson: so, ontologically, velocity exists in the sense that it is the relation between two objects
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): pure physics
[13:32] herman Bergson: so....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): these are properties
[13:32] herman Bergson: when you have the brain.....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): of physics
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): values that can be measured
[13:32] herman Bergson: billions of neurons and synapses and electricity moving through it.....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and in case of a computer stored in variables in program code for use later
[13:33] herman Bergson: cou;dn't we apply the same ontological reasoning here too?
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly Herman
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): maybe?
[13:33] herman Bergson: if you talk about a mental state and its existence....
[13:34] herman Bergson: doesn't it mean the (electrical) relation between two neurons, to put is in a simple way?
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): something like that
[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: do we dare drag dreams into this?
[13:34] herman Bergson: this would lead to the conclusion that what we call the MIND is as real as what we call VELOCITY
[13:34] herman Bergson: Makes no difference Gemma
[13:35] Anuska (anuska.loon) is offline.
[13:35] herman Bergson: Maybe we solved the Mind Body Problem here
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: body sleeping mind active?
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well dreams are the CPU let loose on its own with all stored data but there has to be some kind of "software" that controls this dream state or?
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dreams are a bit special stuff
[13:35] herman Bergson: What we call thoughts , feelings emotions, are not "things", entities
[13:36] herman Bergson: they are  realtions based on the material configuration of a brain at a given moment
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they mix stuff we have experienced during the day with totally random and crazy stuff that seems just generated
[13:36] herman Bergson: relations between neurons
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like tonight i actually had a dream i hanged out with all these Dance guys from Sunday at some weird place, was like a space station or sci fi city
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): everyone was there
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: second life interference
[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can we influence these neurons?
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lucid dreams
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i can do it sometimes
[13:37] herman Bergson: Of course Beertje...you do that all day long...
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but it depends, oi cant do it on demand
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: yes we do
[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) whispers: why am i whispering
[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:38] herman Bergson: all sensory inut influences your neurons....what you see, what you smell (your dogL0( etc
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): because shift should be ctrl and the other way around
[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no more onions for lunch
[13:39] herman Bergson: You are whispering because you must be impressed by my brilliant reasoning today Gemma :-))))
[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ahha
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:39] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oh dear
[13:39] herman Bergson: No, but seriously......
[13:39] herman Bergson: velocity exists....
[13:40] herman Bergson: exitence here means a relation between material objects
[13:40] herman Bergson: thoughts exist
[13:40] herman Bergson: which then means a relation between material objects, that is neurons in the brain
[13:41] herman Bergson: what is wrong with this logic???
[13:41] herman Bergson: it explains the emergence of the mind
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): back to hormones
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): chemistry + electricity makes the mind work
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sounds good
[13:42] herman Bergson: hormones are physical substances in the brain that affect the transmission between neurons and synapses
[13:42] herman Bergson: which leads to behavior
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...this line of thinking is the invention of the day.....
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: maybe the article supports it Gemma
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well it wont hurt
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and also it makes it comparable with the CPU in a computer. The old term "electron brain" is not far of even if computers actually are stupid and cant think for themselves and they also cant experience feelings or consciousness
[13:45] herman Bergson: How can I put htis reasoning put to a test.....
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but still
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and also we are analog and computers digital
[13:45] herman Bergson: I don't write atricles for philosophy magazines....
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but both run on electricity
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well maybe you should try that
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in some way
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and get some discussion going
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes Gemma....
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe I could write a response to that article...a comment....
[13:47] herman Bergson: who knows.
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe you should do that
[13:47] herman Bergson: But to honest....
[13:48] herman Bergson: today I formulated an interpretation for the existence of mental states within a physicalistic ontology
[13:48] herman Bergson: But you know....my main adagium is...
[13:48] herman Bergson: when I can think of something....someone else already did :-)
[13:49] herman Bergson: so...is this the case here?
[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): someone else thinks different
[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true beertje
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: But just imagine....
[13:50] herman Bergson: In fact I answered the ontological question about the existence of mental states...
[13:50] herman Bergson: they are as real as velocity is real
[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well, you think you did
[13:51] herman Bergson: looks like it...
[13:51] herman Bergson: I don;rt know
[13:51] herman Bergson: I mean...can the answer be that simple?
[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): rethinking thesis
[13:52] herman Bergson: I really have to rethink this Gemma L0(
[13:52] herman Bergson: :-)
[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): questions can be complicated, answers can be simple
[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats true I guess indeed
[13:53] herman Bergson: I reallywould like to find a way to put this reasoning to the test
[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): other wise there would be very few philosophers in the world , past and present
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..it would make me very lonely ^_^
[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): or unique
[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah
[13:54] herman Bergson: oh dear...
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:55] herman Bergson: That would make me end up in a museum, stuffed and all
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hahahha
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Herman the fossil
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): wonders what Tuesday will bring
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): naaa philosophy will be around always
[13:55] herman Bergson: No....I really have tot think about these ideas of today
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:56] herman Bergson: MeToo Gemma :-))
[13:56] herman Bergson: So, thank you for this philosophical inspiration.....
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:57] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again ㋡
[13:57] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some  more to think about
[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be here Tuesday
[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye all
[13:57] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): have good weekend
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Gemma...thnx for the article
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa ill check that

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/scientists-identify-mind-body-nexus-human-brain-2023-04-19/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=042023


 

 

1061: Are homones and feelings the same.....?

 Let's look at what we have got so far in our project on Materialism. The first thing is the observation that the term "materialism" has been exchanged for the term "physicalism".
   
The main reason is that modern physics has shown, that matter is not just a simple story about little particles like the Ancient Greek Democritus had suggested.
   
Nevertheless, modern physics has adopted among other things this "particles" idea, a suggestion of a philosopher, who wondered about what really exists.
   
Today physicalism is the philosophical view that everything in the universe, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained by physical processes.
   
Make a note of it: the claim is "everything". That means that there doesn't exist anything that does not obey the laws of nature as formulated by physics.
   
When you see what movies are offered on Netflix, people must really love to indulge in watching how all laws of nature are ignored, defied, negated, and declared nonexistent with time travel, space travel, zombies, monsters, ghosts, witchcraft, paranormal abilities.
    
We seem to be easily inclined to believe, that there is more than just a physical world that we are part of, including mental states and consciousness. Maybe that makes materialism/physicalism, not the most popular ontology.
   
It might have something to do with my earlier remark, that homo sapiens is a hormone junkie. To mention the most popular ones:
   
Oxytocin is a hormone that is often referred to as the "love hormone" because it is associated with feelings of bonding, trust, and intimacy. It is released during social bonding experiences such as hugging or sexual activity.
 
Dopamine: Dopamine is a hormone that is associated with pleasure, reward, and motivation. It is released in response to positive experiences such as eating, exercising, or achieving a goal.
   
Testosterone: Testosterone is a hormone primarily produced in males that is associated with aggression, dominance, and risk-taking behaviors. It has also been linked to sexual arousal and libido.
   
All these hormones are connected with mental states and here begins the debate between science and philosophy, for, imagine, you experience intimacy.
   
Do you experience this because the looks of an attractive person (firing of the optical nerve) make your brain produces oxytocin, which activates processes in your brain that turns your body on and make it act?
    
Or is it the other way around: do you see an attractive person, that is, you say to yourself "Wow she/he looks good" which then sets your endocrinal system to work so that it begins to produce oxytocin?
   
Neurochemicals such as dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and acetylcholine play a crucial role in regulating many mental processes, including emotions, mood, cognition, and behavior.
   
We know that people that suffer from serious depression also show specific neurochemical imbalances or disruptions in brain function.
    
However, we have two sets of data: on the one hand the biochemical processes in the body, and on the other hand the person describing his mental state.
   
We only know for sure, that these two in most cases go together, which means, there is a correlation between the two. When he says "I am in love" we may see high levels of dopamine and oxytocin in his body.
    
And that is what I meant with the remark about the debate between the neuroscientist and the philosopher: can we say that the individual's statement "I am in love" talks about exactly the same
    
as the statement "he is totally stuffed with dopamine and oxytocin" somehow in the way like saying: two helium atoms and one oxygen atom are the same as water?.
    
Is water identical to H2O? Are feelings of love identical to those hormones? And if this is the case, what do we mean by "identical"? Are we describing the same reality in two different languages, for instance?
     
Thank you for your attention.....
    

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

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

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

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

[13:20] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good question
[13:20] herman Bergson: I leave you with this cliff hanger ^_^
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:21] herman Bergson: To me it is an exciting but complex question
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I wonder if science will finally find out
[13:21] herman Bergson: Not one you answer with one keystroke
[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...
[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think it's more complicated than we known now
[13:22] herman Bergson: The intriguing issue here is that ...
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): makes me think of a friend i had that i cuddled with a lot and it was the best thing ever. Don't know where he is now though but we met in 6th elementary school and got really close. I have always since very early loved touch and closeness
[13:22] herman Bergson: on the one hand you have the individual thought/feeling
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and i miss him a lot, still dream about him now and then
[13:23] herman Bergson: on the other hand you have these endocrinical reactions
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but is it just hormones that trigger a such feel good sensation or something else
[13:23] herman Bergson: Is the thougth more than the endocrinical responses to the environment?
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): being close to someone else
[13:24] herman Bergson: And if the thought is more than biochemical processes......???????
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well it is something
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but indeed what is it exactly
[13:25] herman Bergson: But is this something , something physical, Bejiita
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): chemistry and electrical signas i guess including those hormones
[13:25] herman Bergson: According to physicalist ontology it has te be
[13:26] herman Bergson: I am still working on this issue :-))
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so are many philosophers i guess
[13:26] herman Bergson smiles
[13:26] herman Bergson: Always feels good not to be alone , Gemma :-))
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:28] herman Bergson: But in coming lectures I'll try to show you what some philosophers have figured out about this issue ^_^
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im not a lone wolf for sure,I need company
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then we are all different but its i guess generally so for most of us
[13:30] Lady Jane Grey (theiarhea): When we consider the spaces between atoms and molecules, we must consider the vibrational energy which can influence chemical reactions which the pituitary glands play upon hormones, must we not?
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sounds logical
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess
[13:31] herman Bergson: oops, I really don't know, Lady Jane....can you elaborate a little on this?
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if i understand it correct
[13:31] Anna Adamant Albion (anna.adamant) is online.
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like it affects different peope in different way depending on certain things, personal differences ect?
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): geners
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): genes
[13:32] herman Bergson: the spaces between atoms and molecules....?
[13:32] herman Bergson: molecules are collections of atoms.....
[13:33] herman Bergson: so how can there be spaces between them?
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think there is
[13:34] Lady Jane Grey (theiarhea): Apparently, there are vibrations playing off each other in the spaces between the particles at a quantum level which influences everything around it. Apparently this was well known in the ancient worlds hence the patterns of stained glass windows in churches and acoustical architecture. It all plays a part on emotion and behaviour ...apparently.
[13:34] herman Bergson: there can be spaces between atoms and between molecules, I guess
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well there is distance between the nucleus and the electrons
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so many issues to consider
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its not a solid clump
[13:35] herman Bergson: maybe vibrations mean energy?
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa like heat = atomic vibration
[13:35] Lady Jane Grey (theiarhea): yes, sir ...apparently.
[13:36] herman Bergson: At least there is a lot we still don't know about "matter" and energy
[13:36] herman Bergson: That is also what you see in philosophy of mind....
[13:37] herman Bergson: we know...andrenaline goes with a feeling of anger
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:37] herman Bergson: But is anger the same as me saying "I am angry"
[13:37] herman Bergson: with emphasis on the "I"
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): there is the problem
[13:38] herman Bergson: right Gemma
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yet , maybe the brain in its physiology may generate this "I"
[13:39] herman Bergson: But then it is a natural process....so deterministic....
[13:39] Sarah (oosarahoo.voxel) is online.
[13:39] herman Bergson: and now hell breaks loose....
[13:39] herman Bergson: where is free will if all is the result of deterrministic processes...
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:39] herman Bergson: as you see.....
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): seems logical
[13:40] herman Bergson: we still have some stations to pass by :-))
[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or stop at
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:40] herman Bergson: Philosophy isn't heading for the end station, Gemma....:-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: But we may be heading for mist :-))
[13:42] herman Bergson: But for now...let's  enjoy the coming spring first...:-)
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah check the summer tomorrow too
[13:42] herman Bergson: Thank you all again for your participation...
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they are almost ready
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): one is one day older
[13:42] herman Bergson: I'll keep the page on...
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): oki ㋡
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so may go first
[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:42] herman Bergson: follow the birds :-))
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again!