skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In 1994 Antonio R. Damasio, one of the world's leading neurobiologists, published his book "Descartes' Error - Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain". Because I was teaching my computer classes at an Academy of Fine Art, I was completely unaware of this important fact.All subjects we are discussing here today have emerged in neurobiology, evolutionary psychology and the philosophy of mind during the past 25 years, if we take the important work of Patricia Churchland "Neurophilosophy" (1986) as a milestone.But Descartes (1596 - 1650) was born more than 400 years ago? Yet, the modern conception of the philosophy of mind begins with his work.This French philosopher articulated a crucial distinction between two kinds of substances, mental and physical. This was a really convenient solution for a growing problem.The world had become a world of physical science in his time. No longer was the world explained by referring to the Hand of God or mysterious witchcraft or alchemy.The world had become a world of mechanically explicable processes, simple chains of cause and effect, a world where the saying became stronger and stronger: "I first want to really see it, before I gonna believe it."In 2003 Damasio published another book: "Looking for Spinoza - Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain". In Dutch the title became "Het Gelijk van Spinoza" (The Rightness of Spinoza). A reference to Decartes' Error.Was Descartes in error? In fact extracted the mind from matter by his famous "Cogito, ergo sum." (I think, therefore I exist.) For existing you only have to be aware of your thoughts. You don't need a material body for that…… that "material body" can be just an imagination, a thought itself.So he came to the conclusion that the physical realm contains all those things made of matter, which occupy space and are governed by the laws of physics and….that the mental realm contains those things that are essentially mental: hopes, emotions, imaginings, and consciousness. For this conclusion he had strong arguments: a basic principle from Leibniz, the “indiscernibility of identicals”: If two things are identical—if two things are the same thing—then anything true of one is true of the other. Descartes argued: I can doubt that I have a body or any part of a body. I can even doubt that I have a brain—maybe that is part of the illusion. I cannot doubt that I have a mind. There is, therefore, something true of my mind that is true of no part of my body: I cannot doubt that I have it. It follows by Leibniz’s principle that my mind cannot be my body or any part of my body. My mind cannot be my brain. And thus was DUALISM born. Physical things, Descartes says, are always extended and occupy space. Mental things do not have physical dimension in the same way. Spinoza as a youth he first subscribed to Descartes's dualistic belief that body and mind are two separate substances, but later changed his view and asserted that they were not separate, being a single identity. He contended that everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe) is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part.That is why Spinoza definitely was not liked by the church. Descartes had his problems with the church, but his dualism saved the soul and gave the physical realm to science.In 1984 John Searle, a leading philosopher of mind, formulated the problem of Dualism thus:At the moment, the biggest problem is this: We have a certain commonsense picture of ourselves as human beings which is very hard to square with our overall 'scientific' conception of the physical world. We think of ourselves as conscious, free, mindful, rational agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of mindless, meaningless physical particles. Now, how can we square these two conceptions? How, for example, can it be the case that the world contains nothing but unconscious physical particles, and yet that it also contains consciousness? How can a mechanical universe contain intentionalistic human beings – that is, human beings that can represent the world to themselves? How, in short, can an essentially meaningless world contain meanings?Was Descartes showing us a real problem or was he really mistaken and made he us look for centuries in the wrong direction?The Discussion[13:22] herman Bergson: We'll discuss that in the next lecture...:-))[13:23] Zinzi Serevi: ok interesting..:)[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...the floor is yours[13:24] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): we seem to be driven to think that like should have a meaning[13:24] Zinzi Serevi: it has a meaning when we give it and only then[13:24] herman Bergson: what do you mean aristotle[13:25] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): when we look for meaning, why would there be meaning?[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes..but what is meant to say is that when giving a meaning to something...it is a representation in our mind of the intended object[13:26] herman Bergson: No...we create meaning by reflecting on the world around us...[13:26] herman Bergson: That is a special about consciousness...[13:26] herman Bergson: We can represnt the world in our mind[13:26] herman Bergson: And think about it....[13:27] herman Bergson: We have symbols...like the word chair....and we can think about it, even when there is no chair around...[13:28] herman Bergson: But that is just one of the complex faculties of the mind[13:28] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes its objective representation in our subjective minds[13:28] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is our weird experience....[13:28] herman Bergson: that we really have the feeling that the mind , our consciousness is something apart from our body[13:29] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): of course I feel that is true[13:29] herman Bergson: And descartes took it one step further....[13:30] herman Bergson: He even thought that the mental was not material...[13:30] herman Bergson: Next lecture I'll show you that it got him into serious trouble[13:31] herman Bergson: serious[13:31] herman Bergson: Hi Ciska:-)[13:31] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought can not be touched, how could it be material?[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: hello & sorry :([13:31] Ciska Riverstone accepted your inventory offer.[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...that is the odd thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: how to understand that....[13:32] herman Bergson: material things are visible...thoughts seem to be invisible for instance[13:32] herman Bergson: and another thing....[13:32] herman Bergson: we all can see the objects around us....[13:32] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): like love we can only touch the objective manifestations of it[13:32] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): you cannot touch thoughts but you can prove that there is happening something in your brain[13:32] herman Bergson: but nobody can see my private thoughts[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh sure Siggi....[13:33] Zinzi Serevi: thank god..:P[13:33] herman Bergson: Dont worry...we'll get to that definitely[13:34] herman Bergson: But the question is ..more or less....is it Descartes or is it Spinoza :-)[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): but is the brain only reacting to our minds?[13:34] herman Bergson: No Aristotle....the brain generates the mind....[13:34] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): thought must be the creator[13:35] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): or the brain must be the creator of mind[13:35] herman Bergson: The brain is just an interesting biological process....[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain is just a machine[13:35] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): brain[13:36] herman Bergson: that is a metafor Aristotle...[13:36] herman Bergson: what do you mean by it?[13:36] herman Bergson: The brain is a biological organism ...not a machine[13:36] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes the fuel is the mind[13:36] herman Bergson smiles[13:37] herman Bergson: Well..that will gonna be a debate Aristotle....for the future...[13:37] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, it is just a feeling I have[13:37] herman Bergson: for I 'll try to hold the thesis that the brain generates the mind.....or in other words...the mind is a feature of the brain[13:38] Mick Nerido: I agree the mind spings from the brain[13:38] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): LOL, I am in opposition to that of course, but have no proof[13:38] herman Bergson: That is not a problem Aristotle....[13:39] herman Bergson: But I think your opposing view will be fundamentally put to the test in the coming lectures :-)[13:39] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I only seek proof that I am right or wrong[13:39] herman Bergson: But you knew that ...as I made my basic assumptions clear in the very first lecture of this project :-)[13:40] herman Bergson: Well...right or wrong….don't know whether that is the right way to approach the issue....[13:40] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): yes, just traveling with you to the end :)[13:41] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): if someone offrs proof then I am able to refine my philosophy[13:41] herman Bergson: We know little ..and philosophically we are constant in debate with reality[13:41] herman Bergson: I think it is more a matter of plausability....[13:42] herman Bergson: and from that respect..productivity for scientific research for instance[13:42] Mick Nerido: Duality is dead, mind and brain are one?[13:42] herman Bergson: sssttttt Mick.....[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am merely a pirate collecting treasure[13:42] Ortwin Sveiss: but when we ourselves are real, how can we debate with something we´re part of?[13:42] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): who said duality is dead, the one who want it to be dead?[13:42] herman Bergson: .[13:43] herman Bergson: Ortwin....you mean ..the mind is evaluating the mind?[13:43] herman Bergson: Ultimate bellybutton staring???[13:43] Ortwin Sveiss: yes[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: *G*[13:43] herman Bergson: Well there is an answer to that question....[13:44] herman Bergson: A bit complicated..but I'll give it a try.....[13:45] herman Bergson: We have two things..... the real world around us...that is...the answer to the question what is....we call it the ontology....[13:45] herman Bergson: Hi Aya :-)[13:45] Aya Beaumont: hello professor. =)[13:46] Ortwin Sveiss: aha well with two parties a debate is possible[13:46] herman Bergson: no no...wait...[13:47] herman Bergson: the second thing we have is knowledge about what is....[13:47] herman Bergson: that is called the epistemology....[13:48] herman Bergson: The problem you refer to is....how can a personal mind have objective knowledge of THE MIND, because he only has its own mind[13:48] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the argument within is between our subjective selves and our objective selves[13:48] herman Bergson: exactly Aristotle....[13:49] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I say brain and mind or consciousness is the same thing as e.g. fire and heat or fire and light[13:49] Ortwin Sveiss: yes, and why should we separate ourselves or the knowlegde within us from ontology by introducing epistemology?[13:50] Aya Beaumont: I don't know why having an understanding of our own minds would be any more impossible than say, touching one's own hand.[13:50] herman Bergson: Fisrt Siggi.....there you touch the right button...we'll get to that in next lectures[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): before each of those things you meantine Siggi you must place the Sun for either one[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Aya.....[13:50] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): mentioned*[13:51] herman Bergson: I am not introducing epistemology.....that we can KNOW things is just a fact ...and we call it epistemology in philosophical circles[13:51] herman Bergson: but the whole issue is about subjective and objective....[13:52] herman Bergson: can we have objective knowledge of the mind....[13:52] herman Bergson: that is..knowledge..independent of a particular observer...[13:52] Aya Beaumont: Whenever we do things, ourself is the one thing we always take into account. The mind, while obviously not able to have DETAILED information on how our minds work, we can learn the principles of it just fine.[13:52] herman Bergson: Thsi is getting complicated.....[13:52] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): surely modern science will invent a "mindscope"[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: of the brain yes- but not of the mind.[13:53] herman Bergson: There Ciska......!!!! that statement....[13:53] Aya Beaumont: Yes, of the MIND. =) The mind is a direct expression of our brain.[13:53] herman Bergson: Again a bookshelf long :-)[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: not only one[13:53] Aya Beaumont: There is, quite literally no difference between them.[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we better slow down....[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:54] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): the brain being organic tissue creates the mind?[13:54] herman Bergson: Aya you tickle every nerve in me....but I can make them only fire in new lectures ^_^[13:54] Aya Beaumont giggles.[13:55] Aya Beaumont: Thank you, professor.[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle....at least that I can say[13:55] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): that is just a magical as the mind creating the brain[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:55] Aya Beaumont: The brain is ALL that we are, and ALL that we are is the brain.[13:55] herman Bergson: So let's summarize...[13:55] herman Bergson: At least ortwin has a good point....[13:56] herman Bergson: how can a subjective mind have knowledge of THE MIND....[13:56] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): perhaps that is my problem, I have relegated the brain to be just a worker[13:56] Aya Beaumont: And it's pointless to talk about a mind unless you equate it to the functioning of the brain. =)[13:56] herman Bergson: I know...Aya...but it is the way you formulate your view which is a whole debate....[13:57] Aya Beaumont: Heh. Okay.[13:57] herman Bergson: which is a second issue we'll address in further lectures[13:57] herman Bergson: You were really good....![13:58] herman Bergson: Well you put a few things on my desk to come up about with good explanations :-)[13:58] herman Bergson: But don't worry..:-)[13:59] Aya Beaumont: I look forward to those lectures then. =)[13:59] herman Bergson: There are real good answers to our questions..[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: did you read Alva Noe Herman?[13:59] herman Bergson: No..not familiar with the name[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~noe/an_writing.html[14:00] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[14:00] herman Bergson: OK!!![14:00] herman Bergson: I love such input :-)[14:01] herman Bergson: You really were a very good class today.....thank you all for your participation.....[14:01] herman Bergson: Time to relax :-)[14:01] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): Thanks Professor :)[14:01] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[14:01] Zinzi Serevi: thank you[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: have a great day or night everyone[14:02] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you and good night[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): goodnight Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks herman[14:02] herman Bergson: You too ciska[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: bye Ciska[14:02] Ortwin Sveiss: goodnight all[14:02] Aristotle von Doobie (aristotlevon.doobie): I am off, good night everyone[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Aristotle...[14:02] herman Bergson: take care[14:02] Zinzi Serevi: yes me too good night[14:10] Mick Nerido: Sorry i was busy[14:16] herman Bergson: You were excused Mick...:-)[14:17] Mick Nerido: I tried my best to be here it was a great subject today
When I started the series of lectures on basic emotions, interpreted from an evolutionary biological perspective, I said in lecture 306:"It is a mistake, but it is a generally accepted view through history: the human being controls himself by use of his ratio, his actions are based on reasonable considerations, and his behavior is based on knowledge, analysis and synthesis."The basic emotions show that our behavior is controlled by a lot more than our overestimated rationality.As I told you before, we are now in the frontline of neurobiological developments and the philosophical discourse related to those events.Ludwig John (someone who attended our class) directed my attention to a german URL, which was an interview with Alexander Braidt on his book "Bewußtsein. Der Abgrund zwischen Mensch und Tier" (Consciousness: the Abyss between man and animal)The subtitle is exciting in the sense that it refers exactly to what my next lectures will be about:Zur unverstandenen Sonderstellung des menschlichen Gehirns. Eine Streitschrift zum Menschenbild der jüngeren Hirnforschung bei Roth, Singer und Co.Translation: About the misunderstood special position of the human brain. A pamphlet against the concept of man in recent brain research by Roth, Singer and Co.I could not find further information on Alexander Braidt except that he is the author of the book, I mentioned. Interesting however is, that he is one who questions the neuroscientists.And that is exactly what I also was planning to do. In an interview Alexander Braidt said, in line with what I already said in lecture 306, but he adds a few interesting ideas:he reacts to the mistake I mentioned earlier: the idea that the human being with his rationality should be regarded as almost positioned above nature, but also to the views of the neuroscientists on man."So there are good reasons to warn against a special position of man. Only the established brain research pours in this case the baby out with the bath water: that man is from the animal kingdom, does not exclude absolutely that evolution has brought with it a radically new quality, which transcends pure biology. Already the formation of the first molecular chains of elementary atoms introduced radically new properties, which transcended the the purely physical.Take for example atoms that organize "all of a sudden" in an evolutionary process into H2O/water. And a special arrangement and organization of certain long chain molecules into a DNA brought forth revolutionary features like replication and metabolism , which were considered impossible of the individual molecules. Inorganic materials thence developed the radical new feature of life.With some justification, one could say that the current brain research tries to cover up its long-term failure regarding the peculiar phenomenon of consciousness and with it the special position of mankind;it degrades his ego and his so-called free will to pure illusion and consciousness to an epiphenomenon. Brain research has so far failed to discriminate between specific contents of consciousness of perception, attention (e.g. a tree, dog, etc.) and the pure, general condition of awareness."Braidt argues in fact that like atoms, that organized into molecules, these molecules, that constitute our braincells, have organized into something that transcends pure biology: consciousness.There still is so much to say now, but we'll have to address that in new lectures, but what is for sure: our battle between the philosopher and the brain has begun.source:http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34648/1.html
The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you... :-)[13:26] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark..the floor is yours ^_^[13:27] Doodus Moose: we can almost draw a line from atoms to organic molecules, but from molecules to consciousness?????[13:27] Mick Nerido: It is quite amazing that matter can be able to evolve into conscious life forms[13:27] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Doodus...that is the fascinating philosophical problem we gonna tackle :-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and kind of amazing[13:28] Kyra Neutron: so...none of you believes that..first..there as conciousness[13:28] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:28] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....[13:28] herman Bergson: mattter into consciousness...we have no clue at all how to understand that[13:28] Kyra Neutron: you truly can place yourself coming from inorganic mollecules?P[13:29] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:29] Doodus Moose: organic molecules exhibit (as we say in computers) determinism - but consciousness does not[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Kyra I see no problem there...[13:29] Kyra Neutron: herman[13:29] Kyra Neutron: wood is wood[13:29] Mick Nerido: we are organic[13:29] Kyra Neutron: yes..and[13:30] Kyra Neutron: what hocus pocus[13:30] Kyra Neutron: created organic?[13:30] herman Bergson: what we cant understand doesn't mean that it yet happened...and in evolution ..it happened[13:30] Kyra Neutron: how the protons and quarks turned into this dna and rna?[13:30] Mick Nerido: We are carbon based life forms[13:30] Bejiita Imako: also another thing[13:30] Bejiita Imako: plants are also alive but are they conscious[13:30] Bejiita Imako: a tree or a flower[13:31] Bejiita Imako: i dont think so[13:31] Kyra Neutron: yes bejita[13:31] Kyra Neutron: they are part of the consiousness too[13:31] Bejiita Imako: plants[13:31] Kyra Neutron: and they can understand death[13:31] herman Bergson: HOLD ON![13:31] Kyra Neutron: fear[13:31] Kyra Neutron: love[13:31] Kyra Neutron: but[13:31] Kyra Neutron: still[13:31] Kyra Neutron: as we do[13:31] herman Bergson: Hold on....![13:31] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:31] Mick Nerido: Plants have light and gravity sensing tropisms[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hmm cause they seem to feel well when the environment is right[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but they have no brain, seems just a bunch of independent cells[13:32] Kyra Neutron: a good point[13:32] Kyra Neutron: gravity[13:32] Bejiita Imako: dont know[13:32] herman Bergson: It will be our goal to understand the concept of consciousness in the nexrt lectures...[13:32] Kyra Neutron: we are a bunch of[13:32] Kyra Neutron: independent cells either[13:32] Kyra Neutron: you and me[13:32] Kyra Neutron: is no better than a cucumber[13:32] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:32] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:33] herman Bergson: Hold on agian...:-)[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but for ex a tree have no such thing as a brain have no mind[13:33] Bejiita Imako: can a tree feel?[13:33] Kyra Neutron: we are all part of this great breathing gravity[13:33] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:33] Mick Nerido: That we are conscious is self evident how is the question[13:33] herman Bergson: What is the focus of this discussion..what are we debating?[13:33] Bejiita Imako: in some way i think it can[13:33] Kyra Neutron: with the independent cells[13:33] Bejiita Imako: but is it aware of its surroundings[13:33] Kyra Neutron: ah yes[13:33] Kyra Neutron: sorry herman[13:34] herman Bergson: What it is all about today is that the neuroscientists have no clue what consciousness is...[13:34] Kyra Neutron: but a crystal remains as a crystal..and..there is still not a good explanation for the dna ...entereing the scene[13:34] Mick Nerido: The more complex the brain the more it will be aware and possibly conscious[13:34] herman Bergson: and we have to figure out WHAT it is...[13:35] herman Bergson: philosophically :-)[13:35] Kyra Neutron: so first..conciousness...next..[13:35] Kyra Neutron: shadows[13:35] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:35] Doodus Moose: [13:35] herman Bergson: Might be true Kyra...[13:36] herman Bergson: But even if w edont understand consciousness....[13:36] herman Bergson: I'd like to explain to you WHY we dont understand it....[13:37] Kyra Neutron: yes pls[13:37] herman Bergson: In the interview was anther remarkable question....[13:37] herman Bergson: Was something like....[13:38] herman Bergson: What politicla goals are persued by this neurobiological approach of man?[13:38] herman Bergson: Everyone is inclined to beleiv ethat science is science....not that science is politics...[13:39] Mick Nerido: I don't think we yet have words for what conciousness is...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: ...we don't need english letters to know it[13:39] herman Bergson: We gonna work n that Mick...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: close your eyes..and see...[13:39] Kyra Neutron: :p[13:39] Bejiita Imako: to be aware of yourself and your surroundings i d say[13:40] Bejiita Imako: and to be able to feel[13:40] herman Bergson: .[13:40] Mick Nerido: But we need a language for true communication about it[13:40] Kyra Neutron: idk[13:40] Kyra Neutron: a synestesic can find the correct words for it?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: yeti believe they see it easier...[13:41] herman Bergson: Well Mick..that is was Paula Churchland claims...in het book Neurophilosophy[13:41] Kyra Neutron: lowers eyes...sorry herman..i stay silent :p[13:42] herman Bergson: Like in the Middle Ages we had a language which explained nature using terms of whitchcraft and magic...[13:43] Mick Nerido: Naming a thing makes it more real and understandable[13:43] herman Bergson: today...we don't use these terms at all anymore...we use the language of physics[13:43] Kyra Neutron: a "thing"[13:43] Kyra Neutron: that you can touch[13:43] Kyra Neutron: smell[13:43] Kyra Neutron: see[13:43] Kyra Neutron: hear[13:43] Kyra Neutron: makes it easire to definable by mind[13:43] herman Bergson: yes. Kyra...[13:44] herman Bergson: Magic as explanaion has just ceased to exist...like witches[13:44] Kyra Neutron: a name which doesnt have any connection via our senses...[13:45] Bejiita Imako: magic by definition is to defy all laws of nature[13:45] Bejiita Imako: wich is impossible to do[13:45] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...[13:45] Kyra Neutron: it was pleasure to mess the class again[13:45] Kyra Neutron: hopefully see you next time[13:45] Kyra Neutron: nite nite[13:45] herman Bergson smiles at Kyra[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu Kyra[13:46] herman Bergson: Ok...I guess you wait for the nexr round..:-)[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:46] herman Bergson: who will win...the philosopher or the neuroscientist..?[13:46] herman Bergson: If I have to bet....???[13:47] herman Bergson: I'd put my money on herman Bersgon ^_^[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] herman Bergson: OK...[13:48] herman Bergson: It is up to me to win my own bet then ^_^[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:48] Doodus Moose: (is curious about the odds in the bet)[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman[13:49] herman Bergson: Nice thought Doodus....^_^[13:49] Mick Nerido: So you bet on the philosopher?[13:49] herman Bergson: I do Mick![13:49] Zinzi Serevi: thanks Herman, till next class, bye all..:)[13:49] Mick Nerido: Me too[13:50] Doodus Moose: bye Zinzi[13:50] Bejiita Imako: interesting for sure[13:50] Doodus Moose: bye all!!!!!![13:50] Mick Nerido: Thanks[13:50] herman Bergson: Thank you Zinzi..:-)[13:50] Bejiita Imako: bye Doodus[13:50] Ortwin Sveiss: thanks for this last minute[13:50] herman Bergson: Time to dismiss class[13:50] Mick Nerido: , your best lecture to date imo[13:50] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman...it was very interersting;)))[13:50] Bejiita Imako: I think both have right but in their own ways but who have the most right[13:50] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] herman Bergson: We'll see Bejiita...we'll see :-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: but raw science is maybee not the best thing always[13:51] Bejiita Imako: a combination of both things make best I think[13:51] Bejiita Imako: science and philosophy[13:52] Bejiita Imako: cause both have right in their special ways i think[13:52] herman Bergson: Betrand Russell said that when we can answer a question...the question moves from philosophy to science...[13:52] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes science is raw facts about what is proven[13:53] herman Bergson: yes...as far as we understand reality now...[13:53] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: yes its in a permanent flow[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...[13:54] Ciska Riverstone: and the speed grows.[13:55] herman Bergson: We just appraoch reality forma pragmatic point of view...[13:55] herman Bergson: science is that what works...[13:55] Ciska Riverstone: well what else can we do ;)[13:55] herman Bergson: ok...true[13:55] herman Bergson: we need to survive...[13:55] herman Bergson: so to be pragmatic is maybe the best strategy[13:56] herman Bergson: interesting thought...:-)[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: maybe its the only one[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: ;)[13:56] herman Bergson: especially from an evolutionary point of view[13:56] Ciska Riverstone: yes[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: anyway have a good evening folks[13:57] Ciska Riverstone: cu thursday[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aaa cu ㋡[13:57] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry.It meant, that not only the world of physics was about matter, but also the homo sapiens was tied to this material earth.It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just the more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes of the universe, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning …. This concept of a material world, which we are part of was a very threatening idea in Darwin's time - to begin with (and still is for some).The inventor of the word "telepathy" and the writer, Frederic Myers (1843–1901), classical scholar, poet and philosopher, was one of the founders of the Society for Psychical Research. Supported by some of the leading figures of the day, including the Cambridge philosopher Henry Sidgwick and Arthur Balfour, president of the society and later prime minister, the psychical researchers believed human immortality might prove to be a scientifically demonstrable fact.Their quest for an afterlife was partly driven by revulsion against materialism. Science had revealed a world in which humans were no different from other animals in facing oblivion when they died and eventual extinction as a species. Spiritism, serious scientific matter in those days, was the answer to the shock evolution theory had caused. That the homo sapiens was just an animal among other animals in a bare, materialistic world was hard to accept.However, the undercurrent of materialism in scientific thought couldn't be stopped anymore and thence our belief moved from God to science
.We now often hear: it is just a matter of time. Then science will come up with an answer or solution. We can make it. We believe that our world is malleable. Just give us some time.John Gray (1948 - …) was professor of philosophy in Oxford and at The London School of Economics. In his book Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals (2002) he attacks humanism, which he regards as a worldview founded on religious ideologies.According to Gray the will is, and therefore morality, an illusion and he sees humanity as a predatory species , which eradicates other life, while destroying its natural environment.He is a serious critic of the belief in the manufacturability of our world and -in a recent publication- of our belief in progress.He doesn't deny at all that there is scientific progress. This progress is even irreversible, but, as he says: " The average history of ideas is not only incorrect, but also misleading. It gives us the illusion, that we are absolutely rational…(…)The most obvious contemporary example is economics. The financial crisis has shown, that it is a pseudoscience.It claims accuracy, because of which individuals but also governments, companies and banks believe that they can control risks."So, all the more reason to continue our quest into the Mystery of the brain and exploring the basic emotions, which most of the time outflank our so beloved ratio.I started this project, which I regarded a a renewed look at my thesis of 1977, which was about the Identity Thesis and materialism, in other words, a materialist theory of the mind.With philosophers like John Gray and a lot others it is amazing and exciting to see in what direction I was looking in 1977 and what was behind the horizon then for me…..==================================================== JOHN GRAY in youTube====================================================Straw Dogspart 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0rIqAYq5jsStraw Dogspart 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scuXC571kMw&feature=relatedStraw Dogspart 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-7CaP7es6o&feature=related-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The New Atheismpart 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yqT3iad40Y&feature=relatedThe New Atheismpart 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5uTBic4hkU&feature=relatedThe New Atheismpart 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OMSl2wo_zg&feature=relatedThe New Atheismpart 4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_4ny_TYlo&feature=related-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Australian Broadcast Coop54 minutes interviewhttp://fora.tv/2008/05/24/John_Gray_in_Conversation-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Discussion[13:23] herman Bergson: I prepared an eastern egg for you too..:-)[13:24] herman Bergson: when you click it you get a notecard with a number of youTube URLs with John Gray and a 54 minutes interview fron Australian Fora tv[13:24] herman Bergson: thank you ^_^[13:24] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok[13:24] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:24] herman Bergson: it is this golden egg here on my desk[13:26] herman Bergson: This John Gray is one of those philosophers like Dawkins and others ...[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: don't get it herman..this gray guy tries to tell us what wiht the finacial crisi9s[13:26] herman Bergson: He got a full page interview in my newspaper last week[13:27] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:27] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): I got nothing[13:27] BALDUR Joubert: good for him but so did madonna[13:27] herman Bergson: He tells us that economis isn't a science...[13:27] herman Bergson: I liked that interview too Baldur, but she wasn't that philosophical in her answers ;-)[13:28] Doodus Moose: an investor will tell you that the driving forces of the market are greed and fear[13:28] Mick Nerido: Economics is irrational like people[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes I know Doodus...but these are exactly the emotions that bypass rationality[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): well sounds correct[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and too much information sometimes[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: who said economy is a science?[13:29] herman Bergson: Universities Baldur....you can get a degree in Economics like you can in physics[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: its a subject for study.. but ..has it the same value as history?[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): oh i think so[13:29] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): much more it deals with our money[13:30] Doodus Moose: becoming a better investor is constantly overcoming one's irrational urges[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Economics could be a branche of psychology..not an independent science[13:30] Bejiita Imako: well it might be science but in this case a thing we ourselves have invented and made up[13:30] Bejiita Imako: normally science is about what nature have created[13:30] Mick Nerido: Its more like psychology yes[13:30] Bejiita Imako: lite ex physics[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: lol.. a degree... that's enough'[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: '?[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: not that i am against theories in science...[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: but application ..is another thing..[13:31] herman Bergson: well...what I wanted to show you is that materialism as a philosophy plays an interesting role in contemporary thinking...[13:31] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): science is alll theories!!!!!!![13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): theories are what is studied to be proven[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...Science is all beliefs ^_^[13:32] Mick Nerido: Its like a ball game you can have a lot of statistical probabilities but no sure bets[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: as far as economy is concerned the philosophers are lacking with answers to what economy should be like..[13:32] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and they are not theories until there is a great deal of background studied[13:32] Bejiita Imako: lite the standard model and my LHC machine that wil get the proof of some of the theories[13:32] Bejiita Imako: first u get a theory and then u get the proof for it , thats how science work in general[13:33] herman Bergson: I dont agree Baldur.....[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): exactly[13:33] Bejiita Imako: to understand how things really work[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: models my dear are the basis of economics of all times..[13:33] herman Bergson: At the basis of the present crisis you find Ayn Rand and her Atlas Shrugged....[13:33] herman Bergson: Greenspan was her disciple[13:33] herman Bergson: then there is John Stuart MIll[13:33] Bejiita Imako: in the case with the standard model for ex everything have meen prooven in accelerators that the theory have calculated that should be like this[13:34] Bejiita Imako: therefore they say there MUST be a Higgs boson[13:34] herman Bergson: and liberalism...also our toy of today[13:34] Bejiita Imako: otherwise no matter would exist[13:34] Bejiita Imako: cause math dont lie[13:34] Bejiita Imako: natures language[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: romans thought ..conquer the countries to get the economy going.. smile so did the dutch..the brits the french in the colonial times so whats new[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: the method not the intention[13:35] herman Bergson: to tease you Bejiita..higgs particles don't exist...it is imagination :-)[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ah have you seen the new interesting information about the difference in the brain size between conservatives and liberals??????[13:35] herman Bergson: but that is a different subject :-)[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): actually different shapes[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:35] Bejiita Imako: well they say at CERN it would be even more sensational if it didnt exist[13:35] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i will find the article[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes I heard about it Gemma.....[13:36] Bejiita Imako: cause then we have got everything wrong even we are soooooo close[13:36] herman Bergson: patience Bejiita ..patience[13:36] Bejiita Imako: even if i think the higgs mechanism seems a bit weird[13:36] Bejiita Imako: taken out of the air[13:37] herman Bergson: There were brian differences indeed between conservatives and democrates...[13:37] herman Bergson: but I thought that the conclusions were kind of inconclusive....[13:37] herman Bergson: both had a pro and a contra[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: can you remind me of what the subject of your lecture was herman[13:38] herman Bergson: Well..keep you eyes open for news and articles in which you can read materialistic ideas....[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: as i am lost in particles.....[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i have to find it[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:39] herman Bergson: Try to identify the influence of this philosophy on our thoughts[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: which philosophy ..ssorry didn't get the point[13:39] herman Bergson: Baldur..we are pixels in fact...:-)[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: disgusting:)[13:40] herman Bergson: the materialist philosophy Baldur....[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: hm.. pixels as a basis for materialism:9[13:40] Kyra Neutron: and what is so surprising is...[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: ?[13:40] Kyra Neutron: we are talking pixels![13:40] Bejiita Imako: but we are real persons behind the pixels[13:40] herman Bergson: You find it in those who show up in the news media as atheists..or scientists...[13:41] herman Bergson: You are talking to my brain Kyra...dont worry :-)[13:41] Kyra Neutron: idk..herman[13:41] Kyra Neutron: you are a brain?[13:41] Kyra Neutron: me is a bunny[13:41] herman Bergson: well talking to me...me = my brain...that is the idea here :-)[13:41] Kyra Neutron: :)[13:41] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:42] herman Bergson: ok..[13:42] Mick Nerido: And mind[13:42] Kyra Neutron: if...[13:42] Kyra Neutron: ?[13:42] herman Bergson: Have a look at John Gray...a representative of the present ideas among anglo - american philosophers....[13:43] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ok[13:43] herman Bergson: what I find interesting too is, that continental philosophy is almost silent...[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: silent to what[13:43] Kyra Neutron: kk kkk..but reminds herself..dorian gray was more fun..[13:43] herman Bergson: We have Sloterdijk..if I spell the name right..unreadable :-)[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: you didn't look at the link i sent you..[13:44] herman Bergson: If you have no more remarks or questions it is time to catch some nice Bunnies….Eastern Bunnies I mean ^_^[13:45] herman Bergson: Thank you all...[13:45] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:45] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...[13:45] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursday[13:45] Mick Nerido: Bye[13:45] Doodus Moose: Easter bunnies, with potatoes & carrots![13:45] Kyra Neutron: sees hopefully[13:45] Kyra Neutron: oh yes![13:45] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman - bye all - enjoy easter[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu[13:45] Bejiita Imako: happy easter[13:45] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:45] Doodus Moose: Thanks Professor, and all[13:45] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): happy easter holidays[13:46] Kyra Neutron: have a great night all..[13:46] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman:)[13:46] Kyra Neutron: nite nites[13:46] herman Bergson: If you have a few days off ...enjoy your vacation..[13:46] Bejiita Imako: dont eat too many eggs now[13:46] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:46] Bejiita Imako: or candy[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:46] Bejiita Imako: cu all soon again[13:46] Siggi Ludwig (ludwig.john): thank you here it is sunny and warm[13:46] Bejiita Imako: time for me to find the higgs[13:46] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] herman Bergson: Bring us some Bejiita :-)[13:47] Bejiita Imako: I will[13:47] herman Bergson: If not higgs then at least hugs[13:47] Bejiita Imako: LHC broke intensity record again in physics today[13:47] Bejiita Imako: looking good[13:47] Bejiita Imako: machine work well[13:47] Bejiita Imako: cu soon[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] herman Bergson: ok Bejiita..I'll keep my fingers crossed ^_^[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): have a good night all:))[13:48] Bejiita Imako: happy easter[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:48] herman Bergson: Bye Beertje
If you ever had the idea that the human being is a rational being then I have to disappoint you: THAT is an illusion. Oh yes, we can be very rational. Fortunately! The result of it is our scientific knowledge.But in daily live…we…rational? Forget it. Ok ..now and then, but you will have to acknowledge that in general that a lot of our decisions are based on supernatural thinking, on our supersense.For instance, to begin with physical contact. When you love someone dearly you'll embrace that person, even wishper in his or her ear…“just wants to eat you all up”, not physically of course, but that special you.On the other hand, when you meet someone who you deeply despise, you are reluctant to even shake hands, but if you have to your first impulse could be to go and wash your hands.There is more….. Muslims that refuse to shake hands with a woman, that is , touch a woman. Although abolished in India you still have the "untouchables", the lowest class in society there.The same you saw in racial segregation in the US and the Apartheid system in South Africa. All based on the same idea….these people are no good.They will contaminate you with…..With what? We are inclined to believe that a human being is not just a collection of molecules or organs and limbs. He has some essence, his personal being or identity.Where do these feelings come from ? The answer may lie in what we have developed in childhood to understand the world: psychological essentialism. That is how the mind intuitively tries to understand nature.We put things into categories, classes, structures. We try to bring order intothe chaos of our experiences and then say: that is a man, that is a woman, that is an animal. And then we develop an idea what a man makes to be a man, for instance.We are inclined to believe that humans have essential qualities, which we call youth, temperament, beauty, but also evil and that by touching the other person you get 'contaminated" or just get a bit of that essence of the other. Just look how fans try to touch their idol, for instance.There is plenty of evidence that the supernatural belief that we can absorb the good essences of others or can be contaminated by the evil of others is common throughout our culture, practices and attitudes.We even have these beliefs on a cellular level. Do you want to have the heart of an executed serial killer transplanted in you, for instance?There is a supernatural belief that the psychological aspects of anindividual are stored in the organ tissue and can be transferredto the host recipient.Sex with another person is layered with essential, vitalistic, and holistic beliefs. Even in Second Life you encounter the working of our supersense here.People have the feeling of being at one with the other, soul mate, achieving a sacred union or when promiscuity is involved some feel filthy and unclean, when they discover this.There is no physical evidence at all that anything of this really happens, but our brain is wired to think so and there may be an evolutionary explanation.If essences are thought to be transferable, we will not consider ourselves isolated individuals but rather members of a tribe potentially joined to each other through beliefs in supernatural connectedness.Our brain generates these supernatural belief not only regarding other persons, but also with non living things. Ever thought about that picture on your desk of your deceased brother.When you look at it, you experience more than just a picture. You experience a contact. And when you are dead, people who have to clean the house just see a useless picture and maybe they'll keep the frame.Look at art. In 2005 Sotheby’s in London sold 'Lady Seated at a Vestral' for $32 million, following ten years of dispute about whether it was an original Vermeer masterpiece or a twentieth-century forgery attributed to the expert forger Han van Meegeren. After it was announced that the picture was an original Vermeer, its value soared.There is that magic quality which we call authenticity. A copy of the jacket of Michael Jackson isn't worth a dime.The original one is worth a fortune. Our supersense at work.Psychological essentialism is probably one of the main foundations of the universal supernatural belief that there is something more to reality.It is in all of us. Influences our judgements and reactions. Don't claim that you are rationality itself, because you aren't. It is a continuum from absolute rationality to absolute supernatural thinking. Somewhere in-between these two extremes you are.The Discussion[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you...:-)[13:26] Jozen Ocello: thanks :)[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:26] Bejiita Imako: interesting[13:26] herman Bergson: If you have a question or remark....feel free...[13:27] Alarice Beaumont: good lesson... can go along with all you said i would suppose[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: throws out all the frames in my house[13:27] Beertje Beaumont: i think supernatural thinking makes us human[13:27] Bejiita Imako: here there are many things that are true for sure[13:27] Alarice Beaumont: people need a structure.... otherwise it wouldn't work - the life together[13:27] herman Bergson: I agree Beertje.....[13:27] herman Bergson: it is wrong to deny this part of us or talk it down even[13:28] herman Bergson: The only thing is that we have to be aware of it...[13:28] herman Bergson: History shows so many examples of it...[13:28] Bejiita Imako: the importance is to use it the right way and the good parts of it[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting that after so much study of it it still affects us[13:28] herman Bergson: World leaders that meat and immediately dislike eachother....[13:29] Jozen Ocello: or click like buddies (Blair and Bush)[13:29] herman Bergson: Well Gemma...there is a new wave now....[13:29] herman Bergson: For instance..this morning...[13:29] herman Bergson: My newspaper comes with the announcement of a series of articles on free will[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: ah[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ok[13:30] herman Bergson: the heading is "The Death of Free Will"[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: aw.. isn't that a little drastic Herman?[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: you do want to provoke?![13:30] herman Bergson: When I started my philosophical quest in 1978 on the identity thesis (mind == body)[13:31] herman Bergson: there was hardly any neurobilogical evidence...[13:31] herman Bergson: No Alarice..it is not....[13:32] herman Bergson: There is neurobiological evidence that when you decide to move your finger the motoric center of the brain has been active al least 200 millisecondes before you became aware of what you wanted to do...[13:32] Jozen Ocello: i wonder how 'alive' free will actually is.......[13:33] herman Bergson: It means...brain centers fire before you are conscious of it...[13:33] herman Bergson: Well Jozen....[13:33] herman Bergson: there is a parallel in history....[13:33] Alarice Beaumont: think it depends on how one defines "free will"[13:33] herman Bergson: I mentioned Kant....[13:34] herman Bergson: His epistemological interpretation is more in line with neurological evidence than the tabula rasa theory of Locke[13:34] herman Bergson: We'lll CERTAINLY get to that Alarice...dont worry ^_^[13:35] herman Bergson: Regarding to free will we have Freud....[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: ◕‿◕[13:35] herman Bergson: To some extend he was a fraud, but he had the insight that we are not controlled by our will only[13:36] herman Bergson: there is a subconscious[13:36] Jozen Ocello: what does it mean to have free will? and does having free will means that we are in control of our minds (i.e. more rational)?[13:36] herman Bergson: Today neurobiologists discover that the brain is acting before we are conscious of what it makes us do...[13:36] Jozen Ocello: sorry if I'm asking questions that are too basic :P[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: I fully suspect that the foundation for all these supersensical things have some empircal basis we have stored in our brain since birth or a combination of data, then summoned as we need them[13:37] herman Bergson: Your questions are to the point Jozen....[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: very possible aristotle[13:37] herman Bergson: But we'll need to dig into them thouroughly[13:38] Bejiita Imako: aaa can be possible[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: like the reasons I would cringe if I had to shake hands with Bush[13:38] herman Bergson: Oh yes Aristotle..that is what I have said several times...[13:38] Jozen Ocello: maybe throw a shoe or two, but definitely not shake hands :P hehe[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: that is based on my calculated opinion[13:38] herman Bergson: cognitive psychology studies the development of the mind.....[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: of him[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: would be terrible but someone asked me a while back would you want to shake hands with Clinton??[13:39] herman Bergson: I also referred to Jean Piaget as one of the first explorers in that field[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lol[13:39] herman Bergson: well Gemma....[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:40] herman Bergson: physics say that skins touch...supersense say....well say it yourself :-)[13:40] Jozen Ocello: hi Rodney[13:40] Bejiita Imako: well i wouldn't go near Bush, he is a world destroyer![13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:40] Rodney Handrick: Hi Jozen[13:40] Bejiita Imako: or as I call him[13:40] Bejiita Imako: BOOOOOOOSSSHHH! ( the smell)¨[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: agreed sort of[13:41] herman Bergson: Bruce Hood gives a nice example....[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: lol now we are starting a political discussion lool[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: lol[13:41] herman Bergson: He held a lecture once..and showed the audience a fountain pen...[13:41] Bejiita Imako: haha[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: but the feeling relates to our disussion[13:41] Bejiita Imako: indeed[13:41] herman Bergson: he said that it had belonged to Einstein...and he passed it around...[13:41] herman Bergson: everybody was eager to hold the pen for a second...[13:42] herman Bergson: Then he showed a jacket to the audience..[13:42] herman Bergson: This, he said, is the jacket of the serial killer so and so...[13:42] herman Bergson: and he asked…Who wants to try this on?[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: lol..nobody?[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: awww.... no one did?![13:43] herman Bergson: well..I guess you can guess the effect[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: i wouldn't[13:43] Bejiita Imako: I wouldn't in fact i think[13:43] herman Bergson: No..and the person who put up his hand ...well..he didnt make friends there[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: I would have to try it on to disprove the spook of it[13:43] herman Bergson: Yet it is a perfect proof of how our supersense works[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle...[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: the fear does exist tho[13:45] herman Bergson: And even if you would have said that there...50% of the audience at least would have regarded you as a pervert, I guess :-)[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:45] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:45] Beertje Beaumont: oh yes[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: self confidence trumps fear[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: lol yes[13:45] herman Bergson: If you realize....it is amazing how our brain works..how it is wired...[13:45] Gemma Cleanslate: welll no one likes to be fooled[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: that would make me more angry than the jacket[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: but it is like saying I believe in Jesus before dieing just in case it is true[13:46] herman Bergson: LOL[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: lol Ari[13:46] herman Bergson: good strategy Aristotle[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:46] Alarice Beaumont: ,-)[13:46] herman Bergson: But what I wanted to say....[13:47] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:47] herman Bergson: My newspaper starts a series on articles on Free will, or the death of it....now...2010...[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: will be interesting to hear what they say about it all[13:47] herman Bergson: there are also a lot of publictions on neurobilological subjects...[13:47] Alarice Beaumont: have to go... sorry.. see you next time.. bye everyone :-)[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ah alarice[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ok cu Alarice[13:47] Rodney Handrick: bye[13:48] Jozen Ocello: bye Alarice[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: b-bye Alarice[13:48] herman Bergson: Here on my desk I have a brand new Dutch publication:WE ARE OUR BRIAN[13:48] herman Bergson: in other words...[13:49] herman Bergson: there is something happening at the moment...in philosophy and neurobiology...[13:49] herman Bergson: something that wasn't there in 1978[13:49] herman Bergson: even not in 1995[13:49] Rodney Handrick: hmm...[13:50] herman Bergson: I have a piblication of an anthology on mind - body questions....still all 100% philosophical[13:50] herman Bergson: no neurobiological influence at all[13:50] herman Bergson: That influence is emerging now...2010[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm[13:51] herman Bergson: even so strong that it reaches a national newpaper[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ah¨[13:52] herman Bergson: so we are in the frontlines of the battle here :-)[13:52] herman Bergson: Well...I guess you all have to digest this all first....[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: chewing now[13:53] herman Bergson: May I thank you for your attention and participation then....[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: herman[13:53] Bejiita Imako: nice[13:53] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you Professor[13:53] Jozen Ocello: thanks Prof :)[13:53] Rodney Handrick: thanks[13:53] herman Bergson: You always can re read all in our blog[13:53] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:54] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: abraxas says he is following it[13:54] herman Bergson: Nice...[13:54] herman Bergson: Give him my regards when you see him Gemma[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you all....^_^[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: i will for sure he said he was going to talk to you may come as Carl[13:55] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman[13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: lol[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:55] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon ㋡[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye ㋡ [13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: all see you soon[13:55] Jozen Ocello: thanks and see you all on Thursday[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty :-)
As usual all political philosophers we are discussing here are men just like we discovered in our project on 100 philosophers, that there were only two women philosophers.We have put things in balance by doing a project on Women Philosophers and today again we bring back some balance by paying attention to Feminist Political philosophy.Feminist political philosophy is an area of philosophy focused on understanding and critiquing the way political philosophy is usually construed, often without any attention to feminist concerns, and to articulating how political theory might be reconstructed in a way that advances feminist concerns.feminist political philosophy focuses most directly on understanding ways in which collective life can be improved. This project involves understanding the ways in which power emerges and is used or misused in public life.In fact women had a great impact on the political organization of society in the period 1840 -1920 which focused on improving the political, educational, and economic system primarily for middle-class women.A second wave of feminist activity emerges in the 1960s: a new feminist consciousness that emerged through women's solidarity movements and new forms of reflection that uncovered sexist attitudes and impediments throughout the whole of society.Till the 1980s feminist political philosophy mirrored the traditional structures by splitting up in liberal feminism, socialist feminism, Marxist and radical feminism.Since the collapse of the communist regimes are these old categories much less relevant. Along with political philosophy more broadly, more feminist political philosophers began to turn to the meaning and interpretation of civil society, the public sphere, and democracy itself.Liberal feminism still is strong. It discusses the distinction of the private and public sphere. An example: It has criminalized violence against women, which previously, in marital relations, hadn't been considered a crime.They showed how the private/public split served to uphold male domination of women by rendering power relations within the household as “natural” and immune from political regulation.“Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission. If this is true, sexuality is the linchpin of gender inequality” (MacKinnon 1989) Words from a radical feminist.As Amy Allen puts it, “Unlike liberal feminists, who view power as a positive social resource that ought to be fairly distributed, and feminist phenomenologists, who understand domination in terms of a tension between transcendence and immanence, radical feminists tend to understand power in terms of dyadic relations of dominance/subordination, often understood on analogy with the relationship between master and slave.”There are several more developments in feminist political philosophy like maternal feminism, agonisitc feminism and performative feminism."In sum, feminist political philosophy is a still evolving field of thought that has much to offer mainstream political philosophy. In the past two decades it has come to exert a stronger influence over mainstream political theorizing, raising objections that mainstream philosophers have had to address, though not always very convincingly. And in its newest developments it promises to go even further." says Noëlle McAfee at the end of her article in the http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-political/. You should read it. And also http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v99n2_Feminism_07.aspxThe Discusion[13:19] herman Bergson: So that is your homework ㋡[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:20] You decline New Releases & MM Board item from A group member named Spinnetje Jewell.[13:20] Abraxas Nagy: ah[13:20] ZANICIA Chau: oooh![13:20] herman Bergson: It is very revealing.... an eye opener[13:20] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:20] herman Bergson: just like our women philosophers were[13:21] herman Bergson: if you have any questions or remark...feel free[13:21] Bruce Mowbray: Feminism has had a profound effect on theology - as well as political thought.[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: could not connect to the second one[13:22] ZANICIA Chau: Crumbs!....That's Brit for wow![13:22] herman Bergson: the link to that one is at the end of the Stanford article too[13:22] Bruce Mowbray: The "tension between transcendent and immanent" is very powerful.[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: ok will check stanford[13:22] Abraxas Nagy: yep me to[13:23] herman Bergson: To be honest Bruce ...I have no idea what that means ㋡[13:23] Bejiita Imako: aa yes have them up now[13:23] Repose Lionheart: I'm very skeptical of culturally induced imbalances in power relationships...guess I'm a radical feminist at heart ㋡[13:23] Bruce Mowbray: Transcendent "male" God vs. immanent experiential divinity.[13:23] Lena Sigall: what caused men to have more power in society than women.... rather than the reverse?[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: that is good[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: size and strength[13:24] herman Bergson: Well....that is one of the big contributions of feminism.....to uncover those power relations[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: and the belief that women were created to take care of them and the children[13:24] herman Bergson: Oh that explains it quite well Bruce ..thanks[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes..God is a man... ㋡[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:25] herman Bergson: very odd actually[13:25] Bruce Mowbray: The [nonsensical] idea that God ordained women to be subservient to men.[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:25] Repose Lionheart: embedded in myth too...differences in understanding males and females go back to prehistorical (preliterate) times and are deeply embedding in us[13:25] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say... it presumes human likeness[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes.....that is what men wrote ㋡[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: all the way back to that lost rib[13:25] Lena Sigall: but why did those that originally formed current major religions have the desire to oppress women at all?[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: unclean[13:26] Bejiita Imako: aa yes dont get it[13:26] Bruce Mowbray: Worse in "fundamentalist" traditions.[13:26] herman Bergson: One of the reasons historically may be that women were the production unit to keep society alive, and the armies manned[13:26] Bejiita Imako: like islam , women are a thing u can own and they are forbidden to do much other things than stand at the stove[13:26] Bejiita Imako: tragic[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:26] Bejiita Imako: even forbidden to drive cars in ex saudi arabia[13:26] herman Bergson: From our point of view it is bizarre indeed[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes[13:27] Abraxas Nagy: mmm yes[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: from their women view is ok[13:27] Bruce Mowbray: Happy to note that women did VERY well in the US elections on Tuesday.[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and packed from head to toe so the actual human is totally invisible[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lololol[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: well[13:27] Lena Sigall: hasn't most of human life been under matriarchy, except for the past few thousand years?[13:28] herman Bergson: I dont know Lena....[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: in the home and family i would agree[13:28] Bruce Mowbray: I would say "respectful" of matriarchy rather than "under" it.[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: but outside the woman is not more[13:28] herman Bergson: The fact is that our culture is now male dominated[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: not more then in the home[13:29] Lena Sigall: but my point is, it couldn't be that men are naturally more dominant, if for a long time humans were matriarchal[13:29] herman Bergson: and feminism uncovers this imbalance....basically on liberal grounds...[13:29] herman Bergson: and with a claim of equality[13:29] herman Bergson: and there we already have learnt[13:30] Bruce Mowbray: Boys have to be taught to dominate -- and the current culture does a "good" job of teaching them.[13:30] Makara Oh: What is the problem with having a culture that is male dominated? Would it be better the other way around?[13:30] herman Bergson: No Maraka....[13:30] Lena Sigall: oh man[13:30] Lena Sigall: lol[13:30] Bejiita Imako: equal is best[13:30] Bruce Mowbray thinks, Balance is almost always better --the Aristotelian mean.[13:30] herman Bergson: but it concerns here fundamental concepts of ethics...[13:30] Makara Oh: Isn't i a bit like utopia?[13:31] herman Bergson: like equality, freedom, the right to your own life[13:31] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:31] herman Bergson: I dont think it is utopia...[13:31] herman Bergson: Look at violence within the marriage...[13:32] Makara Oh: Was it Rousseau or de Tocqueville who claimed the position of the master is worse than the one f the slave?[13:32] herman Bergson: Now we do something against it...due to feminist action[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yesmuch, it is much appreciated![13:32] Repose Lionheart: power imbalances are as limiting to those who are powerful as to those who are powerless...[13:32] Lena Sigall: sexism is bad for men too... see how gay men are treated[13:33] Bejiita Imako: hmm its wired first people get together cause of love and next moment they try killing each other[13:33] Abraxas Nagy: right[13:33] Bejiita Imako: strange[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: it is more ownership issues i think than love[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita...some people change their mind[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: it is mine and no one cant touch it[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ah yes[13:34] herman Bergson: I would say so too Gemma[13:35] herman Bergson: and this equality issue is specific ally a feminist issue....[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: case here just two weeks ago man left court after being told to stay away from wife (third time!!!) went and shot her in her home[13:35] Bruce Mowbray: In monotheistic religions, God ordains husbands to "own" their wives.[13:35] CONNIE Eichel: oh :/[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes[13:35] Bejiita Imako: heard about that yes[13:35] herman Bergson: bu tin the position of the woman in our culture this inequality is very clear ....[13:35] Bejiita Imako: crazy[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes, what is being striven for is very practical, not utopian at all[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: economically also[13:36] Repose Lionheart: that women not be shot in their homes...[13:36] Bruce Mowbray: Bringing equality to the labor force doubles its size.[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Bruce ㋡[13:36] Repose Lionheart: and increases economice efficiency[13:36] Bejiita Imako: a yes[13:37] Bruce Mowbray nods.[13:37] Lena Sigall: why are women still paid less for the same work?[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: very good question[13:37] Repose Lionheart: same with recial integrations of workforces[13:37] Repose Lionheart: racial*[13:37] Bejiita Imako: and here we have a good example not only about women but people from other countries immigrating here to sweden,[13:37] Bruce Mowbray thinks, THAT's GOT to change.[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: that is why feminists are still so active[13:37] herman Bergson: I have no idea.... it is illogical..[13:37] Bejiita Imako: engineers cant get better jobs than sweeping floors and so[13:37] Lena Sigall: there's been like no progress in the US in 20 years or something :/[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i think there has been[13:37] Lena Sigall: why is progress so slow?[13:38] Bejiita Imako: really strange[13:38] Repose Lionheart: some of it is structural...some of it is bias[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:38] herman Bergson: The slowness is a subjective onbservation.....[13:38] Bruce Mowbray thinks: Human nature doesn't like to rock the boat.[13:39] herman Bergson: Some processes took a hundred years to achieve a success...[13:39] Repose Lionheart: too few places protect women's careers (seniority and such like) when they get pregnant, for instance[13:39] Lena Sigall: that's too long[13:39] Lena Sigall: all women should go on strike![13:39] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: lol[13:39] herman Bergson: I have no idea whether it took too long or not....[13:39] Bejiita Imako: read many stories like , CG to the baby- U ARE FIRED![13:39] Repose Lionheart: yes![13:39] Abraxas Nagy: ╔╗╔═╦╗[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: ║╚╣║║╚╗[13:39] Abraxas Nagy: ╚═╩═╩═╝[13:39] Bejiita Imako: terrible[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: Good point, Lena -- the Lysistrata (sp?)[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes....the wifes of Sparta...[13:40] Bruce Mowbray nods.[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: No more sex for your guys![13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ahhha[13:40] herman Bergson: Fact is that social changes take a long time...[13:40] Bruce Mowbray: you guys.[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: huh?[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yep, recall that[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: no way[13:41] Lena Sigall: and women pay the consequences in the meantime?[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof[13:41] Lena Sigall: that's wrong[13:41] herman Bergson: maybe the old generation must die first before the new ideas set roots[13:41] Repose Lionheart: women who resist change are part of the problem, too[13:41] herman Bergson: and such generation after generation[13:41] Bruce Mowbray: I think men, in general, are VERY insecure -- and that's why they dominate.[13:41] Repose Lionheart: it is a people problem[13:41] Repose Lionheart: as they all are :([13:42] Lena Sigall: women treat each other badly[13:42] herman Bergson: These are unwarranted generalizations.....[13:42] Lena Sigall: like bullying in the workplace[13:42] Repose Lionheart: how so, Prof?[13:43] herman Bergson: Because some women treat other women badly....[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: it begins in the home , and then the school[13:43] herman e nuances[13:44] Bruce Mowbray: Yet, some facts - like wage disparity - can be demonstrated to be true.[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:44] herman Bergson: Even saying 'it is vert common" brings up a lot of questions...[13:45] herman Bergson: Where is it common….social stratification...... in family or nor...etc[13:45] Repose Lionheart: i would say, common in my experience, i think[13:46] herman Bergson: it is the objective of philosophical discourse to reveal all such questions...not to use generalizations...[13:46] Repose Lionheart: that would limit the context of the claim[13:46] herman Bergson: That would be correct Repose....[13:46] Bruce Mowbray: It is very common in America for women not to become Presidents and Governors.[13:46] herman Bergson: then we can question your experience[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: we reveal many questions in the class always have[13:47] Repose Lionheart: understood those limitations as implicit in what Lena said, me[13:47] herman Bergson: Every generalization is subject to philosophical analysis[13:47] Repose Lionheart: True, Prof ㋡[13:47] herman Bergson: I am not addressing Lena personally here...[13:47] Bruce Mowbray: Theological seminaries (Protestant) now have more female students than male.[13:47] Repose Lionheart: ok ㋡[13:47] herman Bergson: Just pointing at philosophical method[13:47] Repose Lionheart: :))[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Do they, Bruce?[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Interesting[13:48] Bruce Mowbray: yes![13:48] Repose Lionheart: That will make for changes 25 years down the road :)))[13:48] Repose Lionheart: hehe[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: I think it reflects a basic change in our mythos.[13:49] Repose Lionheart: yes, i agree ㋡[13:49] Repose Lionheart: think, the Alien movies :))[13:49] Repose Lionheart: hehe[13:49] Repose Lionheart: silly example[13:49] herman Bergson: Well.... there may be a relation with feminist ethics here....[13:49] herman Bergson: Care ethics...[13:49] Repose Lionheart: oh![13:49] Repose Lionheart: Care ethics[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: This of AVATAR.[13:49] Repose Lionheart: like the sound of that[13:49] Bruce Mowbray: Think.[13:50] Repose Lionheart: ㋡ Bruce[13:50] herman Bergson: The feminist philosophers have more understanding if interrelational care and its meaning than male philosophers had in the past...[13:50] Bruce Mowbray: The natural ethics of caring and unity of all things.[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: that is natural[13:50] Repose Lionheart: oh, interesting[13:50] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes... and religion a about care too[13:50] Repose Lionheart: oh[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yes it should be[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes repose....[13:51] herman Bergson: You could compare it with vertical and horizontal thinking....[13:51] Bruce Mowbray thinks: I hope no one brings up the priests molesting children. . ..[13:51] herman Bergson: Like the Roman catholic church with all its conservatism is returning to vertical thinking...[13:52] Bruce Mowbray thinks, Oh god -- here it comes.[13:52] herman Bergson: where the horizontal thinking ..the care disappears behind its horizon[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: hmmm....one way to put it![13:52] Bruce Mowbray: and the parisheners disappear from the churches.[13:53] ZANICIA Chau: lol[13:53] herman Bergson: Exactly Bruce....[13:53] Repose Lionheart thinks Bruce is prescient[13:53] Bruce Mowbray: fair is fair.[13:53] Repose Lionheart: ㋡[13:53] Repose Lionheart: Yes, Prof[13:54] herman Bergson: We are a little off target now....[13:54] Bruce Mowbray: All claims to sexist domination have mythical sub-texts.[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ok have to get going now[13:54] herman Bergson: In general you can say that feminist political philosophy is a valueable contribution to philosophical discourse...[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: see you Tuesday I hope[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Gemma[13:55] Bejiita Imako: cu gemma[13:55] Repose Lionheart: true, myth lies at the base of all human activity...even in our times[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: soon i hope ab[13:55] Zinzi Serevi: bye bye Gemma[13:55] Bruce Mowbray: a very valuable contribution to philosophical discourse.[13:55] ZANICIA Chau: bye[13:55] Abraxas Nagy: yep[13:55] herman Bergson: Well Gemma ..it is almost time....so no problem...[13:55] Repose Lionheart: bye, Gemma ㋡[13:55] herman Bergson: Ok..may I thank you all for your attention and participation again...[13:55] Bruce Mowbray: [`·.] APPLAUSE!! [.·´][13:55] Abraxas Nagy: thank YOU again herman[13:55] Bejiita Imako: interesting as usual :)[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ㋡[13:55] Lena Sigall: thanks herman[13:56] Zinzi Serevi: thank you proff[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Oh, thank you, Professor![13:56] ZANICIA Chau: thanks professor...wonderful again[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: as always food for thought[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ok gtg to a birthday party now[13:56] Lena Sigall: see you all next time[13:56] Bejiita Imako: but cu soon[13:56] CONNIE Eichel: great class :)[13:56] Bejiita Imako: :)[13:56] CONNIE Eichel: hope i can join next one[13:56] ZANICIA Chau: goodbye all[13:56] Loo Zeta is sorry I came late, son was hogging computer[13:56] herman Bergson: Read the articles....Begin with stanford and you'll be completely informed on this subject[13:56] ZANICIA Chau: ty[13:56] Repose Lionheart: Yes, Prof ㋡[13:56] Abraxas Nagy: see you all nextime friends[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: bye Abrax[[13:57] Zinzi Serevi: bye everyone..:)[13:57] herman Bergson: By Abraxas[13:57] CONNIE Eichel: bye z[13:57] Repose Lionheart poofs
