1072: On to the next station....

 Physicalism is the philosophical view that everything in the universe, including mental states and consciousness, can be explained by physical processes.

In general I would argued that everything that exists is composed of physical entities and that any non-physical entities can be reduced to physical entities.
     
Forty-five years ago I held the view that mental states are identical to physical states and that any apparent differences between mental and physical states can be explained by the different ways they are described, a matter of language and semantics.
 
Daniel Dennett is an American philosopher . He is 81 now and I think he is my big example regarding physicalism and the philosophy of mind. To be honest... I think I even look like him a little in RL :-)
      
He defended physicalism in his work "Consciousness Explained" (1991). He argued that consciousness is not a separate entity from the physical world but is instead a product of physical processes in the brain.
   
You can get a free download of that book here: https://freethoughts.dorshon.com/wp-content/uploads/Consciousness-Explained.pdf
   
In accordance with all this my point of view is that consciousness can be fully explained by neuroscience and that any non-physical aspects of consciousness are illusory.
   
So far so good. On our way to a final conclusion we already passed two station. The first one was defining criteria to decide whether the statement "X exists" is true of false.
   
In that process we ran into abstract terms. There does not exist some entity which is designated by the term "Supermarket", unless, as we saw we regard this general term as a container concept.
   
There does not some stand-alone entity 'supermarket'. The word is the name of a set, a huge collection of objects that comply with our criteria to establish the truth-value of the statement "The supermarket exists".
   
Does the mind exist? Yes, like you cannot deny velocity as being real. 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.
    
Likewise the mind is not a thing. The mind is the relation between the neurons and the energy that drives the communication with 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 communication to each other.
    
I told you I had a chat with ChatGPT about that abstract term "gravity". For Einstein "matter", as we discuss it here, was the connection between mass and energy.
   
That makes me think, that equally the mind is the close connection between brain-mass and the electric energy, that makes it tick,
    
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

[13:14] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): tell chat we like it that way
[13:14] herman Bergson: lol
[13:14] I am done...I gonna hang myself :-) Wasn't there that weird story that ChatGPT in Italy had advised someone to kill himself? Now I understand ^_^
[13:14]     
[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and he did
[13:15] herman Bergson: See you at the funeral :-)
[13:15] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you caN'T IS YOU HANGED YOURSELF
[13:15] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not going
[13:16] herman Bergson: ohh...got a point Beertje :-)
[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm indeed i heard that story
[13:16] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I think a lot of professors feel that way when they talk to gpt
[13:16] herman Bergson: The story is nonsense...
[13:16] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
[13:16] Max Chatnoir: Interesting!
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but can even Chat GPT properly criticize a text. i think when u told it to criticize it Chat GPT takes that as = write negative about it no matter what it is, not sure it can do text analysis that way reall
[13:17] herman Bergson: Well..the point is that ChatGPT treats this lecture as a scientific essay....It hasn't any understanding of the context in which it is delivered
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like it said it lacks depth, this lecture did not lack depth by any means i think
[13:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): u told it basically to write negative comments of it no matter the content
[13:18] herman Bergson: Well..I just said to a friend...I oversimplify philosophical problems.....
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats what i think is happened here
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no wonder we cant graduate
[13:18] herman Bergson: In fact that is a compliment regarding my educational skills to explain complex issues
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:19] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): did you submit it to bard??
[13:19] Max Chatnoir: I asked Chat GTP the same question 3 times yesterday.  The first time it gave me an answer.  The second time, it gave me an apology for the first answer, and gave me a different answer.  The third time it gave me a better version of the first answer.
[13:19] herman Bergson: not yet....just managed to log in to Bard
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): in fact you are a genius, who can explaine complicated thought to us simple souls
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least machines do what we tell them to, and thats a good thing. my trusty 3d printer just manufactured a new stand foot for my bike exact to 0.01 (thats how exact my digital caliper is) of a mm to what i drew in CAD
[13:20] herman Bergson: thank you Beertje...will put the rope on eBay then :-)
[13:20] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): gpt as long as it does not recognize itself is ok
[13:21] herman Bergson: You saved my life ^_^
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: Please do not hang yourself.
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): when it does watch out
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): haha no
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (cheers herman up by offfering to make him new high quality bike parts)
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:22] herman Bergson: Anyway...physicalism still prevails here :-)
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its TURF season after all
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: What a relief!
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:23] herman Bergson: Next time the Bard will sing for you about this lecture Gemma :-)
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we shall see
[13:23] bergfrau Apfelbaum: no matter what this program writes! Don't hang yourself and buy a bottle of wine. you genius:-)
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): good suggestion
[13:23] herman Bergson: lol
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: Is that related to the claim that if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, there is now sound?
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ask bard what you should add to it to make it better
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well don't worry...it didn't crush my ego :-)
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: ...sorry, no sound.
[13:24] herman Bergson: It was just an interesting test which shows the limits of Chat...it has no idea  about the context
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sound is the brains interpretation of vibration in air, so the vibrations are there for sure but not sound u could say
[13:25] herman Bergson: in other owrds...
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): according to me
[13:25] Max Chatnoir: Works for me, Bejiita!
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:25] herman Bergson: in my prompt I first should have written a description of the SL context etc...what has been etc....and then ask to critisize
[13:25] Max Chatnoir: The stimulus is there even if the receiver is absent.
[13:26] herman Bergson: What do you mean Max?
[13:26] Max Chatnoir: The sound waves.
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: Sorry, that wasn't a response to what you said.  Please ignore it.
[13:27] herman Bergson: np
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ur right max though
[13:28] herman Bergson: Interesting remark Bejiita....
[13:28] herman Bergson: sound is another way of talking about movement of air
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the stimulus (vibrations in air) is always there no matter if someone is there or now
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not
[13:28] Max Chatnoir: And air is physical.
[13:28] herman Bergson: I see what you meant Max
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats true
[13:28] herman Bergson: That falling tree in the forest....
[13:29] herman Bergson: ok..guess we have some idea what the mind can be....
[13:29] bergfrau Apfelbaum: "receiver is missing"        like in the church
[13:30] herman Bergson: Next step is to see whether the Identity theory of the Supervenience theory are the most effective interpretations
[13:30] herman Bergson: I'll save that for another lecture tho ^_^
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:31] Max Chatnoir: Thanks!
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:31] herman Bergson: Thank you all again for your participation..:-)
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)
[13:31] herman Bergson: Class dismissed and enjoy the coming weekend :-))
[13:31] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you Herman and class!

1071: Language.....

 In the previous lecture, we asked the question: Under what conditions is the statement "X exists" true?
   
I gambled that ChatGPT could tell it better than me, so I dropped my question there and ChatGPT came up with a correct answer,
   
The truth value of the statement is determined by the following conditions: Objective existence, Observable or detectable, Consistency with reality, Empirical evidence, Verification or confirmation, and Contextual relevance.
 
I guess that might be sufficient. Let's look at the condition of Objective existence, that means: For X to exist, it must have a physical or abstract form that is independent of subjective perception.
   
What is that? Do abstract forms exist? Ok, the tin can at my feet exists. I can kick it down the street, but for abstract things, where is the empirical evidence? After all, that is also one of the conditions.
   
This brings us to the next step: language. As a teaser, I said in the debate after the previous lecture that the mind does not exist. This obliges me to come up with a decent argumentation and explain what I mean by it.
   
Ok, let's begin with simple semantics. It means the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
 
Our area here is logical semantics, concerned with matters such as meaning and reference and presupposition and implication.
 
The basic idea is that when we describe our world, the words we use have a meaning and a reference. That is the way we communicate and understand each other.
 
That is why you always can ask about every word what it means and determine on the basis of the meaning whether that word really refers to something real.
   
Take for instance the word "Martian". Someone might tell you that he had a conversation with a Martian lately.
 
What is a Martian? Well, a little green man who lives on the planet Mars. Such an answer sounds meaningful.
   
But as we all know there is no life on Mars. So, there is no link between the meaning and an observable object. In other words.....fake news. It is some subjective personal fantasy.
   
But that is how we have learned to deal with communication. What is said and told often sounds meaningful to us,
 
which easily leads to the assumption that it is about something substantial and real unless we identify what is said as a lie.
 
Thence, when I talk about the mind, we are inclined to assume that there is something observable in a human being, that we can point to as "the mind". But there isn't. Yet it is an abstract term of which we can say that it exists.
    
I can take you to the supermarket and you are impressed by the countless products on the shelves, the cash registers, and self-scan tools, but at the end, you say:
    
You promised to show me your favorite supermarket. I have seen a lot of products and so on, but where is the supermarket?
 
This shows us that like the term "Mind" the term"Supermarket" does not refer to a single material object but to a whole collection or set of individual objects. You could call such terms container concepts.
   
It is like the ingredients of a recipe. Each ingredient has a meaning and real reference and when you put them all together you get union soup, a term which refers to the collection of ingredients.
    
In that sense, we can speak about the existence of abstract concepts. The term "mind" does not refer to some single thing in our head, but to a collection of processes and so on in our central nervous system.
   
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
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well that makes sense indeed
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes it does
[13:25] herman Bergson: This is how abstract concepts can have real reference
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good examples
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): abstract containers for concrete collections of object together forming the final abstraction
[13:27] herman Bergson: I started as a philosopher who thought the Identity theory of Mind-Body was an answer for a materialist
[13:27] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and now?
[13:28] herman Bergson: My point then was that expressions describing mental states.... It hurts....referred to the same empirical data  as the statement...nerve so and so fire
[13:28] herman Bergson: And now.....:-)
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): you still hold that theory as it was then
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...we are on our way to a concept that developed in the 1980s....when I was teaching
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:29] herman Bergson: supervenience......
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that word is ok
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): checked it out
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): makes a lot of sense
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:29] herman Bergson: and what I am now investigating is if this really is a replacement of the Identity theory
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:30] herman Bergson: I am still niased and not yet convinced :-)
[13:30] herman Bergson: It will take some more lectures to get to the show down :-)
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i see
[13:31] herman Bergson: Keep in mind.....
[13:31] herman Bergson: Philsophers spend a lot of time on conceptual analysis....
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we know
[13:31] herman Bergson: clear concepts and definitions helps other scientists in their field
[13:32] herman Bergson: Like for instance Thomas Kuhn  as a philosopher of science showed that there is no linear progress in science...but paradigm shifts
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or change of terms
[13:33] herman Bergson: In my opinion the Identity Theory is a good ontological explanation of the relation between neuroscience and psychology for instance
[13:34] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and there must be a connection the more the neuroscientists learn
[13:34] herman Bergson: I ran into the concept of Supervenience due to this project..... it told me what I had missed the past 45 years :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: So...we'll see where I gonna land :-)
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:35] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): It's always a pleasure to learn
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:35] herman Bergson: it is....
[13:35] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes it is
[13:35] herman Bergson: for instance...
[13:35] herman Bergson: Today I thought....abstract term....? Gravitation
[13:36] herman Bergson: And I had a chat about it with ChatGPT....
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh boy
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:36] herman Bergson: I now have a reasonable insight in Einstein's relativity theory and the curvature of spacetime
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now that something!
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:37] herman Bergson: From a materialist point of view very interesting
[13:37] herman Bergson: For Einstein there were two things.... mass and energy
[13:37] herman Bergson: or even only energy.... totally abstract
[13:38] herman Bergson: But what he came up with......is astonishing....how he interpreted reality
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: I asked ChatGPT.....
[13:39] herman Bergson: And where did Einstein get his empirical evidence from to postulate mass and energy as the basics
[13:39] herman Bergson: I got a fabulous answer
[13:39] herman Bergson: A list of fundamental physics experiments that could not be explained unless......
[13:40] herman Bergson: Einstein put the pieces of the puzzle together
[13:41] herman Bergson: But there still is the question.....what is the input from within...from our brain....and what is the input from outside...through our senses to get to such an answer
[13:41] herman Bergson: It is really fascinating
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i have started using Bard part of Chrome
[13:41] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is good too
[13:41] herman Bergson: Here I have to think of the epistemology of Kant
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes i saw a doc about Bard, its really cool stuff
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): he probably would too if living now
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes...I have heard about that....
[13:42] herman Bergson: Is it a kind of ChatGPT ?
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): saw that at a friends place last weekend
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is separate
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its chatgpt but even more
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): using the same technology
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it can do EVERYTHING as it looked
[13:42] herman Bergson: yes it is from a different company
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): from writing essays to debug your code
[13:43] herman Bergson: How do you get in Gemma?
[13:43] herman Bergson: Bard.com???
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): get chrome
[13:43] herman Bergson: I have
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): let me see
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as i understand its not released to the public yet however
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): still a prototype
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but the demo was cool
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): https://bard.google.com/
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess i got in on an invite to test
[13:44] herman Bergson: ahh...cool
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): try that
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i see
[13:44] herman Bergson: By the way...I saw a Youtube demonstrating ten other Chat/Bard like programs
[13:45] herman Bergson: It is a hype at the moment
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa it says right out all it can do with animated text
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cool
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): big discussions here of problems with it
[13:45] herman Bergson: And it is revolutionary....
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): as some one said like the invention of the printing press!!!!!
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that much of a leap
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): is not supported in my country at moment
[13:46] herman Bergson: I could drop the text of this lecture in ChatGPT and say.... critic this lecture
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ohh
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:46] herman Bergson: and it will do....merciless :-))
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i hope it will not be like with Cortana, its still not available in Sweden, will never be
[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oh dear
[13:46] herman Bergson: I think I'll gonna do it
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i have it on machine but cant use it, not supported in your language
[13:46] herman Bergson: BUT!
[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yuck on cortina
[13:47] herman Bergson: Most important with these tools is the PROMPT
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and to enable it i have to reinstall entire machine with another language it seems
[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh wow
[13:47] herman Bergson: the PROMPT means....the formulated question or text you input
[13:48] herman Bergson: I saw an example
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): no easy way to get it working, unless there is something i have missed, a while since i tried now
[13:48] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:48] herman Bergson: The input was a complext calculation....
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:49] herman Bergson: something like (3423-65)/37.77 * 32.111
[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ha
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well Bard is still a prototype and google is more worldwide covering it seems so i have hopes for it
[13:49] herman Bergson: the outcome was incorrect.....
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that i might be able to also use it
[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it will get there bej
[13:49] herman Bergson: BUT
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it can be useful
[13:49] herman Bergson: the prompt was incorrect....
[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ahha
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:50] herman Bergson: He changed the PROMPT in : You are a gifted mathematician and you have to solve the following problem: (3423-65)/37.77 * 32.111
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i want it correct also, otherwise its not useful ㋡
[13:50] herman Bergson: The answer ChatGPT generated was correct
[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i am sure
[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting3
[13:51] herman Bergson: this showed how essential the right formulation of a prompt is
[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the mass of information on the web all collected and in place will give the correct information
[13:51] herman Bergson: Lots of  Youtube stuff
[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa indeed thats how it works
[13:52] herman Bergson: The most astonishing one was the example that you can order ChatGPT to formulate the correct and perfect prompt for your subject
[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i would say the same for bard
[13:52] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): problem is
[13:53] herman Bergson: There is a Youtube of it...my son in law uses exatly that routine for his work
[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): can chatgpt or bard or any other get information enough to order an atomic attack or some other issue
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes...BArd seems to be similar to ChatGPT....I don't say equal...that I don't know
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i hope not
[13:54] herman Bergson: That was called JAILBREAKING Gemma
[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sigh
[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but the worry
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i recently saw this movie Delete about the entire internet reaching a critical mass of computers that then became an intelligent organism and deciding to wipe out humanity using all our technical equipment and weaponry
[13:55] herman Bergson: The general tool has restrictions....ethical and decency restrictions
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): congress here thinking of how to harness it
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDGIgGqTPOg&t=1581s
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): 2 part film
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it can fake voice of real person saying words he never would
[13:55] herman Bergson: But it is possible to get ChatGPT to ignore decency rules of instance and make it write a porn story
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess u can do that
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is scamming people
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it is doing it
[13:56] herman Bergson: or offer unethical solutions for some problem
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not chat bot but the use of it
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so is scary
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): until the prude Americans decide to burn it on the stake like all those books
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ssss
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but indeed it can be used in malicious ways if not careful
[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ouch
[13:57] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes
[13:57] herman Bergson: You see a lot of movies in which Americans explain how to make big money with ChatGPT
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sheesh
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): always money money more money
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sigh
[13:57] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so typical US
[13:57] herman Bergson: indeed Bejiita
[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): dont blame us all bej
[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:58] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:58] herman Bergson: I agree Gemma.....
[13:58] herman Bergson: the new world religion today is called ECONOMY
[13:59] herman Bergson: the name of the god is PROFIT and GROWTH
[[13:59] herman Bergson: it has a double name :-)
[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[14:00] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ok time
[14:00] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)

1070: Let's put the pieces together....

In the previous lecture, I told you about my observation, that some 45 years ago I thought the Mind-Body Identity Theory was the way a materialist would deal with the human condition.
   
But in the current literature, I studied. I had to learn that the current trend is, that the concept of Supervenience the better philosophical answer is. Is this really the case? Does it offer a better explanation of the relation between mental states and brain states, between Mind and Matter?
 
You can imagine that this is a challenging question for me. Have I become a philosophical fossil, adhering to outdated philosophical theories about mind and matter?
   
I rolled up my sleeves and thought....Ok...let's find out. I'll try to go step by step from zero till I have arrived at supervenience and a conclusion about whether the Identity Theory is surpassed by this concept indeed.
 
In this project, I introduced you to my conviction, that materialism, the ontological point of view, that the reality we live in consists of matter. What is meant by matter, we have already discussed enough.
   
We, as conscious beings, are part of this material world. We are material ourselves and nothing but material like all living creatures, which all have a certain kind of awareness of their existence.
   
That homo sapiens is a social animal is not a unique quality. There are many kinds of social animals. The fact that we can communicate with each other is not a unique feature either. Many living beings have signals to inform each other of food sources or imminent danger.
    
What makes us unique is our self-awareness, related to the knowledge of time: past, present, and future, and in particular that we are capable of using meaningful language to talk about past, present, and future.
    
For homo sapiens, the quintessence of existence is communication, language, the unique tool to exchange all aspects of ourselves, the memories, the present knowledge, and the expectations, for instance.
    
To get back to the materialist point of view that is our starting point, one of the quintessential statements is: "Attention, please! ..... X exists". And our response could be that we look around to see if this is the care.
   
We have a language for that. We ask the question: "Is it TRUE?". Lazy as I am, I asked ChatGPT for the conditions that could establish the truth value of this claim.

ChatGPT reported: The conditions that make the statement "X exists" true can vary depending on the context and the nature of X. However, in general, there are a few fundamental conditions that need to be met for something to be considered to exist:

Objective existence: For X to exist, it must have a physical or abstract form that is independent of subjective perception. It means that X is not merely a figment of someone's imagination or a subjective belief.

Observable or detectable: X should be observable or detectable in some way, either directly or indirectly. This can involve using our senses (e.g., seeing, hearing, touching), employing scientific instruments, or relying on logical deductions.

Consistency with reality: The existence of X should be consistent with the laws, principles, and observations of the natural world or the relevant domain of inquiry. It should not contradict well-established facts or lead to logical contradictions.

Empirical evidence: There should be empirical evidence supporting the existence of X. This evidence can come from scientific experiments, observations, measurements, or other reliable sources of information.

Verification or confirmation: The existence of X should be verifiable or confirmable by independent means or multiple sources. This helps to ensure that it is not an isolated or unrepeatable occurrence, reducing the possibility of error or deception.

Contextual relevance: The existence of X should be meaningful or relevant within a given context or framework of understanding. The context can be scientific, philosophical, cultural, or any other relevant domain where the concept of X is being considered.

ChatGPT has spoken........
   
To be honest,  I couldn't have done it better.  From a materialist point of view, this is an interesting set of conditions, which excludes "merely a figment of someone's imagination or a subjective belief".
   
So far so good. On to the next step...see you next Tuesday....
Thank you all again 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
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:21] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll discuss what really exists
[13:21] herman Bergson: You know the conditions now
[13:22] herman Bergson: Tuesday we'll discuss what it means to say that the mind exists.
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:22] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i hope Gemma and Oola will be here
[13:23] herman Bergson: yes...
[13:23] herman Bergson: and as a teaser and spoiler I already will reveal to you that the mind does not exist :-))
[13:23] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): o ?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Right , Beertje ^_^
[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its just a term we put on our self awareness i guess
[13:24] herman Bergson: I say nothing Bejiita..nice try :-))
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:25] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): leaving us with wonder....
[13:25] herman Bergson: What is more important today is the question: when is a statement true
[13:26] herman Bergson: That is the meaning of the series of conditions that ChatGPT came up with...
[13:27] herman Bergson: You can apply them to any stement to test the truth of the statement
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): wel that thing was right for sure there
[13:27] herman Bergson: They do not apply to statements from politicians
[13:27] herman Bergson: they don't apply there
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for obvious reasons
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes :-)
[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): so we have to wait for Tuesday to get some answers?
[13:29] herman Bergson: At least the statement This was an easy lecture" is true today :-))
[13:29] herman Bergson: statement
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is the word easy true in this case?
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well my head is not spinning like LHC so
[13:30] herman Bergson: That was my hope, Beertje :-))
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting nontheless
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well....
[13:31] herman Bergson: then I suggest you take a good rest during the weekend sothat you'll be ready for next Tuesday :-)
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:32] herman Bergson: Class dismissed......^_^
[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))

1069: In the Jungle.....

 How to continue our quest? As a first pass, physicalism is the doctrine that there is nothing over and above the physical. Much recent philosophical work has been devoted to spelling out what this means in more rigorous terms and to assessing the case for the view.
   
Nothing over and above the physical. Particles are physical, but we also have to be able to deal with entities that are irreducible to physical entities in some important sense,
   
provided they depend on and are determined by physical entities in the right way. You could think of gravitational fields, maybe magnetism, and of course mental states.
   
I finished my academic studies with the Mind-Body Identity theory. That was in the late 1970s. In 1977 my detailed study of this subject came to a halt as I got a job as an educator.
   
The professional philosophers continued, however, their work. The Identity Theory was of course not the end station. In other words, now I run into completely new approaches to the theme of materialism.
   
One thing we already have learned. We don't call it materialism anymore. To be in tune with the modern and current views we speak of physicalism: nothing over and above the physical.
 
And now I have to study what has been developed by professional academic philosophers in the past 45 years. Well, they must have had enough time to come up with clear answers to our questions.
    
I can tell you, that is not the case. Some of the literature I read, I hardly understand. Especially analytical philosophers love to be as abstract as possible occasionally. Besides that, I run into new ideas that were produced in these past 45 years.
   
I have to learn a new concept in relation to physicalism: "Supervenience"  and the verb "to supervene". The real philosophical interest in the term began in 1982 and the following years.
   
In that period I was completely absorbed by information technology, database design, and computers. So I never noticed the new developments in the philosophy of mind.
   
The use of the term is strictly philosophical and thus has its specific philosophical meaning. Let's see what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
     
A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “There cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”. --END QUOTE--
     
Supervenience is a central notion in analytic philosophy. It has been invoked in almost every corner of the field. For example, it has been claimed that aesthetic, moral, and mental properties supervene upon physical properties.
 
It has also been claimed that modal truths (this is possible or necessary truths) supervene on non-modal ones and that general truths supervene on particular truths.
   
I am still dealing with the question: what offers this idea of supervenience? What does it mean that A supervenes B, that the mental state supervenes the physical state?
   
What kind of relation is there between A and B. Do we have to understand it as a causal relation? And in what sense does this supervening have an explanatory function regarding the relation between the physical and the mental?
   
At the moment I am working my way through the literature in search of answers and I hope I can find them. That you will discover soon .......
    
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

 
[13:12] herman Bergson: To be honest.....
[13:12] herman Bergson: I still have no clue what to do with this new term :-)
[13:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I take it as to mean sort of  tightly coupled, i cant change one without change the other
[13:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): if i get it right
[13:13] herman Bergson: I mean...what kind of relation is it
[13:13] herman Bergson: That is right Bejiita
[13:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but indeed
[13:14] herman Bergson: But what new fact does it tell us....?
[13:14] herman Bergson: Mental states supervene brain states
[13:15] herman Bergson: I am still studying on the question.....what does that mean, what does it tell me about the relation between mental and physical states
[13:15] herman Bergson: Neuroscience tells me more
[13:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): tries to find an analogy hmm i get the concept
[13:16] herman Bergson: But philosophers are writing complex articles about the term....
[13:16] oola Neruda: I can't help but wonder if natural reflexes aren't part of this mix
[13:17] herman Bergson: yes I think so, oola
[13:17] herman Bergson: So...you have to be patient....
[13:18] Bree Birke is offline.
[13:18] herman Bergson: Thursday I'll know more
[13:18] oola Neruda: it does look like a real quagmire
[13:18] herman Bergson: But what I am reading atm doesn't give me much hope.....
[13:18] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in programming terms i see it like the opposite of overriding a so called superclass (the class that the current class inherited from) in that every change u do in the class will also change the superclass and not be an independent (overridden) change for that class. If u are not familiar with object oriented programming this analogy is a bit tricky to grasp however
[13:19] oola Neruda: can we harken back to one cell entities
[13:19] herman Bergson: quagmire? What is that oola ?? :-)
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its just the closest analogy for me
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said tightly coupled vs independent
[13:19] oola Neruda: something hard to get through ... like a swamp
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i need to look this up more
[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes that is correct Bejiita
[13:20] herman Bergson: Well...a swamp it is ^_^
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i plunged into a swamp when out turfing yesterday with my friend. got mud all over me
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): FLUMP
[13:20] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:20] oola Neruda: think of a single celled life form...
[13:20] herman Bergson: The fact that you have a specific term does not yet imply that it has a clear reference to something that exists
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess thats true
[13:21] oola Neruda: what would the basic moves or whatever sign of life there is in a single celled thing
[13:21] herman Bergson: I have the word Martian....I can discuss the meaning of the word...
[13:21] herman Bergson: But that does not imply that there exists something like a Martian
[13:22] herman Bergson: And this term supervenience  gives me the same feelings
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a definition of something that might or might not exist
[13:22] herman Bergson: It is not used outside philosophical debates
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:23] herman Bergson: We know there is a relation between the brain and our thoughts and feelings
[13:23] herman Bergson: But we still have no clue what kind of relation
[13:23] oola Neruda: what makes a single cell entity work
[13:24] herman Bergson: So we come up with a new term....supervenience relation :-)
[13:24] herman Bergson: We dont know, I'd say oola
[13:24] herman Bergson: LIFE
[13:25] herman Bergson: What is the difference between animated and unanimated entities?
[13:25] herman Bergson: To say that the animated ones live, doesn't explain how this is possible
[13:26] herman Bergson: we know THAT a cell lives, we even know the cause and the processes
[13:26] oola Neruda: somehow, i cannot help but think of chemistry
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes of course
[13:27] herman Bergson: all kinds of chemical processes are active in a cell
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:27] herman Bergson: chemical
[13:27] herman Bergson: but what starts the engine?
[13:27] oola Neruda: exactly
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[13:28] herman Bergson: Because we could reproduce all these elements, but yet we can not create life from unanimated matter
[13:29] herman Bergson: fascinating questions :-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: especially because we have no answers
[13:29] oola Neruda: reactions to nerves/touch... is a start
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well....I'd better leave you pondering about these questions for a while :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: So, let me dismiss class :-)
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:31] oola Neruda: this is a really hard one
[13:31] CONNIE Eichel is online.
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes oola....we walk along the borders of our knowable world
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmmm true
[13:32] oola Neruda: nods...
[13:32] oola Neruda: i cannot help but think that chemistry fits in there somewhere
[13:33] herman Bergson: It isn't suprising that through history sought refuge in religions and ideologies
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true oola
[13:33] herman Bergson: It does oola
[13:33] herman Bergson: Our brain is one big chemical factory :-)[13:34] oola Neruda: also the "last man standing"... in various "experiments"
[13:34] herman Bergson: And we put pills in our body to influence its chemistry
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): many processes in life are chemical, like hormones, also moving your muscles is done chemically, a substance called ATP and Acetylcoline
[13:34] oola Neruda: exactly
[13:35] herman Bergson: what we already know about that chemistry is amazing
[13:35] oola Neruda: whatever did not perish... whatever came out alive
[13:35] herman Bergson: it brought us Big Farma for instance :-)
[13:36] herman Bergson: Anyway....thank you all again :-) 

1068: A Final look....

 Sometimes I run into a philosophical wall and have to think of Socrates' words: I know that I don't know.
   
For instance, the past week I see a number of videos on Youtube, which want to tell you that observations with the newest space telescope has revealed that the Big Bang theory is wrong.
   
But I begin with the question: why is there a Big Bang theory at all? Ok, maybe it is an adequate model that can be used to explain phenomena, but then I think:
   
our brain is only capable of thinking in terms of space and time. So that is the only way we can think about where we are and there is no way to verify the idea that space and time are the real thing.
   
In the context of materialism we have the same problem with consciousness. If you read the article on the subject in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy... to be honest...I gave up, so much talk and so complex.
   
I have said it before: already as a student of philosophy I was well aware of the fact that we try to measure the ruler in our hand with the ruler we have in our hand, when we talk about the brain and consciousness.
   
The Identity Theory is such an attempt. How far did we come? To get back to square one, the point of the identity theory is to defend materialism, and the way is to show that apparently non-physical things are in fact physical after all.
   
And the apparently non-physical things are identified with the brain. In the previous lecture we already investigated the meaning of the concept of identity: when are two things identical?
    
But what is the essence of the materialism that is being defended? Originally it was some version of an ontology of atoms in the void, but this has had to be abandoned,
 
because materialism has always been obliged to take the lead from science, as scientific discovery arises from the same epistemological methodology that materialism espouses, and science has abandoned the atoms in the void ontology.
   
What the identity theorists fail to take on board is just how profoundly science has abandoned traditional materialism. They talk as if brain processes, dynamic systems of neuronal networks, carry, for science, the full ontological status once ascribed to the atoms in the void.
 
They imagine that the atoms and molecules that in composition form the brain processes supposedly identical with mental experiences are given by science unambiguous status as entities that exist.
 
But there is a problem. There exist atoms and molecules, but we have no idea what the deepest structure of matter is. We keep on finding new particles, strange quantum behavior of particles and so on.
 
On the other hand our thoughts and feelings are real. There must be a link between whatever matter is and our thoughts, feelings, dreams, memories and desires. We plan our actions and form intentions. We form emotional attachments and structure our lives around them.
   
All of these things are underpinned, in a way that we do not yet understand, by the unbelievable complexity of the brain and its mechanisms, some of which extend into the body.
   
We need to make connections between the knowledge that we have about our minds and the knowledge that we have of our bodies and brains, but we do not yet know
   
how to connect  this knowledge in a systematic  and explanatory way. In other words, we have now idea how matter is able to create awareness and consciousness in living beings.
 
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

 
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:20] herman Bergson: Having watched these space observations, I really wondered...what are we doing here in space?
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we always land at the meaning or cousiousness to begin with
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting for sure
[13:21] herman Bergson: Don't misunderstand me...I have no problem with human life :-)
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yep
[13:21] herman Bergson: yes Gemma...
[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes why are we here the fundamental problem
[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but indeed measuring the ruler with the ruler, we can indeed not go outside our bodies
[13:21] herman Bergson: The more you think about it the greater the mystery becomes
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): can only make conclusions based on opur own senses
[13:22] herman Bergson: What are we? An anomaly in space?
[13:22] herman Bergson: Prisoners of our own mind
[13:23] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well we can use sensors and detectors to visualize UV IR light ect as well as detecting particle collisions. but still. what we see is from within our heads, our bodies no matter what
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): for example we can not visualize more then 3 dimensions. the analogy of the Flatland shows this clearly with a 2d world vs a 3d object
[13:24] herman Bergson: Animals live in a completely different world....some don't see colors, some see infrared, etc....
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interesting tho Webb camera is still looking way back in time
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well, you arrive at a Kantian epistemology....
[13:24] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some see other part of the spectrum then we do
[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to the beginning
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): big bang or whatever
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa yes
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....but what does that mean......the beginning of the universe?
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and your tunnel is still looking too bejita
[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no clue
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the beginning of the universe
[13:26] herman Bergson: we apply our way of looking at reality to our observations...so we use time as a parameter and distance
[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): chemical?
[13:26] herman Bergson: I still haven't found a good solution for the question: Where is the universe situated?
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all around us, but is it infonite?
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): infinite
[13:27] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is there just 1 universe?
[13:27] herman Bergson: Because we think in those three dimensions,  the universe itself should be somewhere too, I guess?
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and what is outside and then we indeed can start to talk about a where lovation for the universe
[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed Beertje
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true Herman
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): another big question beertje
[13:28] herman Bergson: Beertje, I learned that our universe is situated in a black holer....
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): awk
[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes i learned that too
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): you think??
[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): where did tht come from
[13:29] herman Bergson: I have no clue Gemma....
[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): where did you learn it i mean??
[13:29] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we live in a black hole
[13:29] herman Bergson: The only thing I really know is that I live a good and happy life on this planet (lucky me:-)
[13:30] herman Bergson: But the moment I start wandering outside that life or planet, I am lost in no time
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): interesting concept
[13:30] herman Bergson: It doesn't worry me....but I am curious....I would like to know and not listen to Socrates :-)[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): and if you knew, what would you do with that ?
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i just checked ai for black hole theory
[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): is very vague
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:31] herman Bergson: Good question, Beertje :-)
[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): wold it make your life easier ?
[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): what do we do with any new knowlege
[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): we think about it
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the parallel universe idea is a nice one
[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh gosh as long as we dont move from one to another
[13:32] herman Bergson: Usually you like to satisfy your curiosity....so if I found the answer I would feel satisfied ....which is a pleasant feeling:-)
[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): right
[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): a glas of wine can give you that feeling too
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): im incorporating that in my MYST realm actually since i started working on it. part of the story in my version
[13:33] herman Bergson: A lot of things can Beertje :-)
[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i know:))
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is not the point ^_^
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but do they exist for real?
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): burgers
[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oh lol, burger again
[13:33] herman Bergson: No Gemma :-)
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hahhah burgers exist for real! thats for sure!
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): happy humbles burger farm is however just a game
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or is it?
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:34] herman Bergson: So, we have mental things and material things and the present idea was that mental things refer to brain states
[13:35] herman Bergson: In science we have at least come to proof correlations
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aa now i got an insteresting idea about that,m a bit tricky to explain though
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): mind control choips, living inside a simulation or dream, like the matrix
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): implanted by evil aliens
[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): crazy idea but
[13:36] herman Bergson: and as we saw...to say mental states and brain states are identical gives us a lot of troublesome questions.....what is meant by identical
[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): conspiracy theories
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all parameters same
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): shape, properties ect
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): an exact copy of something
[13:37] herman Bergson: At least such ideas proof that imagination is one of our mental qualities
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): = identical
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): true for sure
[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or the Matrix movie would never have been made
[13:37] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): identical has to be on the same place too
[13:38] herman Bergson: YEs Bejiita, but this strict identity cant be used in the mind- body theory
[13:38] herman Bergson: doesn't work[13:39] herman Bergson: As I said today......how do we find connections between our knowledge of mental states and our knowledge of brain states......seen from a materialist perspective
[13:39] herman Bergson: So far we have no clue at all
[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Like with an analogy, if i in Unreal engine copy what is known as a blueprint (combined object and script item) I get an identical object with all properties and parameters identical however a different instance of it
[13:40] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): do we need a clue?[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): same in rl u can have identical objects but always multiple instances if that object them
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): of
[13:40] herman Bergson: I'd say yes, Beertje.....it would help us a lot in understanding how we function as human beings, and what to do when things go wrong....
[13:41] herman Bergson: Like we now have anti depression medication
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so u can address and act on each object individually, for ex, 2 identical balls but i can kick other one or the other,
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): either
[13:41] herman Bergson: Knowledge always gets us somewhere....
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa eys
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): damn, getting drunk?
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well played floorball again so a bit tired
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sigh
[13:42] herman Bergson: Also a solution Bejiita ^_^
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:42] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least some interesting ideas to think about
[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): I think some of the ideas about parallel universes comes from being drunk
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): or using mushrooms
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we dont know until proven
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:43] herman Bergson: Then you havent read Naming and NEcessity by Saul Kripke, Gemma....
[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): nope
[13:43] herman Bergson: He talks about possible worlds....
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): but have listened to many who absolutely belive in them
[13:44] herman Bergson: wondering what can be true in all possible worlds.....
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): were they all drunk Gemma>?
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the thing is noone have ever observed this, there is a swedish movie called Tangent Room that illustrates this occuring however, different universes colliding at one spot
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and some claim ot have visited them
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its really good
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no clue
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:44] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sounded not but who knows
[13:44] herman Bergson: Another brain issue....BELIEF......
[13:45] herman Bergson: is belief KNOWLEDGE?
[13:45] herman Bergson: A lot of people claim that belief is knowledge
[13:45] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no I think it's fantasy
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4230078/
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they believe it
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): as strongly as you belive it is not
[13:45] herman Bergson: all those people who KNOW what god wants us to do, for instance
[13:45] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): believe
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i got the multiple universe idea to my MYST game from this film
[13:46] herman Bergson: Then we have a next question....can a belief have a truth value?
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but are they real? as said we cant know until we have observed/detected it
[13:46] herman Bergson: false beliefs and true beliefs?
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): are believes fantasy?
[13:47] herman Bergson: And what does it mean when you qualify a belief as TRUE?
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm interesting
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well
[13:47] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): seeing is believing sort of?
[13:47] herman Bergson: Could be Beertje...
[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): if one believes it is true to them it is
[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): so hard to understand
[13:48] herman Bergson: Butr what do I say when I say: I believe it is going to rain.....no fantasy, I'd say
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but have they actually observed it then
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa things like that for sure but
[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you look to the sky and it could be it's going to rain
[13:48] herman Bergson: That is the psychological aspect of belief, Gemma
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then what is the probability, well i know if i then go to the golf course then it WILL both rain and thunder (cause mr whatever up there hates golfers it seems)
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson: in philosophy we question the epistemological characteristics of beliefs
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thunder
[13:50] herman Bergson: Anyway.....
[13:50] herman Bergson: this is what our brain can produce :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: and Gemma might get hungry at te moment :-)
[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!
[13:50] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...
[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): burgers"__
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a theory, he hates golfers cause there is lot of swearing involved usually
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ol
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol
[13:51] herman Bergson: So....let's get ready for the next lecture on Tuesday
[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): what time is it Gemma?
[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ?
[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): at your place
[13:51] herman Bergson: -6 hours Beertje
[13:52] herman Bergson: The beautiful state of Connecticut :-))
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:52] herman Bergson: Been there ^_^
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a connected place i guess
[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dont have so much check on the different states what is in each one
[13:53] herman Bergson: Forests
[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): oh is real time 4:53
[13:53] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): other then Texas is still wild west and everyone shoots like maniacs like its a human right to blast guns everywhere
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least many there seem to think so
[13:54] herman Bergson: Let's not go there Bejiita....oh my
[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and then of course  oil and legendary Texas instruments
[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Better go to Giethoorn Bejiita
[13:55] herman Bergson: lol indeed Beertje
[13:55] herman Bergson: Disappear into the MIST Bejiita :-))
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i heard recently a story from texas a maniac shooting his gun in his garden and the neighbours complaied that baby could not sleep, he just "ITS MY GARDEN I DO WHAT I WANT" Then he walked inside their house and shot them all to death
[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): awful story
[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sorrry to say more states than just Texas
[13:56] herman Bergson: If there are no questions left...we might end our discussion of today....
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well true
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be here Tuesday
[13:56] herman Bergson: Thank you all again :-)
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa cu then Gemma
[13:56] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hugs ㋡
[13:56] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): bye Gemma
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you herman and class
[13:56] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): enjoy your burger
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aaa ㋡
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): have a meeting
[13:56] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye