370: The Brain and a new point of view

Nice to see you all again. I hope you enjoyed your holidays as much as I did. For those who missed my message , of course , 2012 for you a lot of health and lots of love.

At least the coming months of this new year will be pretty difficult for us, because we have reached the final stage of our quest into the mystery of the brain.

The brain has been the topic of last year in RL. Lots of publications about the brain and how it works. During our quest we too have seen that many mental phenomena can be explained by the functioning and properties of the brain.

I started our quest with my thesis formulated in 1977, which was, to put it simple, that mental terms and physical terms refer to the same thing.

For example, to say "I am angry" and "There is adrenaline in my blood" may have a different meaning, but when asked to what state of affairs do both statements refer, we should give the answer: to a specific biochemical state of my body.

Taken one step further you could conclude that when those mental terms refer to the same states of affairs as the physical terms, then why not dispose of these often vague mental terms.

Like you could suggest to dispose of the word "water''. Delete it from our language, because talking about H2O is way more accurate.

This way of thinking is called reductionism, reducing one set of statements to a more fundamental set of statements, even suggesting to eliminate the first set.

Like we have reduced complete theories of witchcraft and alchemy to more basic chemical and medical theories. We even don't take witchcraft and alchemy serious anymore.

It all may sounds so obvious, that our language refers only to the material world and that with the growth of our scientific knowledge we can unmask pseudo-language that claims to refer to more than just material states of affairs.

But now comes the difficult part. John Searle (1932 - …)says: "Consciousness does not seem to be "physical" in the way that other features of the brain, such as neuron firings, are physical.

Nor does it seem to be reducible to physical processes by the usual sorts of scientific analyses that have worked for such physical properties as heat and solidity."

Thus , a reductionist view won't do the job according to Searle. Yet his thesis is that "consciousness is a natural, biological phenomenon.It is as much a part of our biological life as digestion, growth, or photosynthesis."

And he adds" We are blinded to the natural, biological character of consciousness and other mental phenomena by our philosophical tradition, which makes "mental" and "physical" into two mutually exclusive categories.

The way out is to reject both dualism and materialism, and accept that consciousness is both a qualitative, subjective "mental" phenomenon, and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world."

So that will be my new position: putting to the test that consciousness is a qualitative mental phenomenon and at the same time a natural part of the "physical" world. And in this context, according to Searle , we can reject materialism.

Again Searle: " Consciousness is a natural biological phenomenon that does not fit comfortably into either of the traditional categories of mental and physical.

It is caused by lower-level microprocesses in the brain and it is a feature of the brain at the higher macro levels. To accept this "biological naturalism," as I like to call it, we first have to abandon the traditional categories."

So, according to Searle, I have to abandon my materialist reductionist approach of the mind - body problem and accept that his view is more plausible.

Then this will be our new approach tot the Mystery of the Brain.


The Discussion

[2012/01/03 13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you... ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:20] Farv Hallison: It sounds like wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.
[2012/01/03 13:20] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ..:-))
[2012/01/03 13:21] Farv Hallison: two complementary decriptions...sometimes wave, other times particle.
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Well dont know what that is, but at some stage Searle points at quantum mechanics indeed in relation to the subject of free wil
[2012/01/03 13:21] herman Bergson: Ahh yes...
[2012/01/03 13:22] herman Bergson: As you may have understood...I am going to make John Searle a kind of central focus
[2012/01/03 13:23] herman Bergson: He is a brilliant philosopher of mind excelling in clarity and good arguments
[2012/01/03 13:23] Mick Nerido: could it be simply that as a brain grows more evolved consciousness is a inevitable step in its functioning?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: There you already imply the possibility of growth of consciousness Mick....that already is an issue...
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: is a child less conscious than we are?
[2012/01/03 13:25] Farv Hallison: what does 'inevitable' mean in this context?
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: If so ..how do you measure that
[2012/01/03 13:25] herman Bergson: typo for inevitable.... cant escape it
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mick Nerido: when I have cafeine I am more conscious :))
[2012/01/03 13:26] Mistyowl Warrhol: consciousness is awareness.. a child has limited awareness of all around it. So is a child less conscious or just less experienced in understanding what it sees or hears?
[2012/01/03 13:27] Lizzy Pleides: can we say a part is heredity and another part is experience?
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: that is easily said Mick, but we even haven't a clear definition of consciousness....
[2012/01/03 13:27] herman Bergson: You may feel more alert yes....
[2012/01/03 13:28] herman Bergson: but you were conscious of your mental state before and after the coffee
[2012/01/03 13:29] Mistyowl Warrhol: lol I am only conscious after at least 2 cups of coffee !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:29] Farv Hallison: It has survival value. we become aware of when someone is going to be mean to us and cut them off before they can do it.
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: what did change only that what you were conscious of
[2012/01/03 13:29] herman Bergson: yes Farv , what happens is that some senses become more accurate and focused
[2012/01/03 13:30] Farv Hallison: we could change our reactions by becoming aware
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mistyowl Warrhol: How does one define "consciousness"
[2012/01/03 13:30] Mick Nerido: Consciousness is linked to awareness of past present and future...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: of course....but what we are talking about is th econtent of our conscious experience and its effects on the organism
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: not about consciousness itself and what it is
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: and believe me...at this moment I have no clue what it is...
[2012/01/03 13:31] herman Bergson: I know where it resided in the brain
[2012/01/03 13:32] herman Bergson: that is....when certain areas of the brain show no activitiy at all anymore then the person is not conscious
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But so far that is all we know....
[2012/01/03 13:33] Mistyowl Warrhol: If areas of the brain are no longer conscious are they then dead?
[2012/01/03 13:33] herman Bergson: But what the brain then generates what we call consciousness and how it relates to the brain....we'll have to find out
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: You better write that dow Bergie!
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mick Nerido: she is writing everything down lol
[2012/01/03 13:34] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i wrote everything :-) herr professor
[2012/01/03 13:34] herman Bergson: Good.....
[2012/01/03 13:34] Mistyowl Warrhol: Waiting to see if she needs to sharpen her pencil soon.
[2012/01/03 13:35] herman Bergson: Well...if there are no more questions, then..may invite you to follow me in my quest in 2012
[2012/01/03 13:35] Farv Hallison wonders if bergfrau wrote down how Mistyowl's hair smells.
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel takes the invitation
[2012/01/03 13:36] neret Emor: thanks so much herman
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must think too with writing - mulititaskgenie
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: Looking forward to more conscious raising awareness of the universe!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] CONNIE Eichel: hehe
[2012/01/03 13:36] herman Bergson: I really dont know where we will end....
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mistyowl Warrhol: I just washed it !!!!
[2012/01/03 13:36] Mick Nerido: Thanks professor!
[2012/01/03 13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and ty class :-) i must go outside with m dogs
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: see you soon:-) philosophers
[2012/01/03 13:37] CONNIE Eichel: was nice, as always :)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
[2012/01/03 13:37] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
[2012/01/03 13:37] Mistyowl Warrhol: A lot to think about :-)
[2012/01/03 13:37] Farv Hallison: Thank you Professor Bergson.
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman
[2012/01/03 13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********

336: The material Brain

In a previous lecture I said, that Materialism is the general theory that the ultimate constituents of reality are material or physical bodies, elements or processes.

It is a form of monism in that it holds that everything in existence is reducible to what is material or physical in nature.

Although this is good enough as a base to continue with developing a deeper understanding of materialism as an ontological point of view,

there is a rather obvious question : "What is matter?" The answer to this question has to be at least consistent with our basic assumptions of materialism.

Natural philosophers have studied material objects and contrasted them with such immaterial agencies as energy and fields of force.

The terms “matter” and “material” have played a humble part not only in science but also in moral philosophy and even theology.

Matter has thus been placed in opposition to life and mind, soul and spirit, and a preoccupation with worldly pleasures and bodily comforts, has been condemned as “materialistic” and unworthy of spiritual beings, as opposed to the “higher” pleasures of the mind.

When you look at it more closely, you must come to the conclusion that through the ages matter was not always the same matter: the concept of matter has been progressively refined and modified in the course of intellectual history.

Since Thales of Milete (600 B.C) a basic philosophical problem was the question: “What universal, permanent substance underlies the variety and change of the physical world?”

For Aristotle objects were composed of the four terrestrial elements—earth, air, fire, and water—and could be created and destroyed, Of all terrestrial things only the souls of rational beings were exempted from change and decay.

The alchemical philosophers in the 2nd and 3rd century, for their part, introduced an experimental element into the study of matter. they were led to contrast volatile and chemically active substances, such as alcohol and ether (spirits), with solid and passive ones, such as sand and stones.

The association of the soul and the body in living creatures was thus treated as analogous to the association of volatile and gaseous with solid and earthy substances in a chemical compound.

It could be quite possible that from those ideas come how we see the soul or a ghost: some cloud like, half transparent being. Ideas that were rejected of course by theologians like Thomas Aquinas (died 1274)

The revival of the physical sciences during the Renaissance from 1550 on started from a position in which no single doctrine about the nature of matter was clearly established and generally accepted.

When we meet Descartes (died 1650) there had emerged a new mechanical corpuscular philosophy to a proliferation of new kinds of atom

—for instance, magnetic, calorific, and frigorific corpuscles— introduced to account for the corresponding physical phenomena of magnetism, heat, cold, and so on.

Christian theology had added its own objections to any explanation of mental activity that regarded the mind as composed of atoms, no matter how light or mobile, for this, it was generally agreed, came perilously close to denying the immortality of the soul.

The new physical science of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries accordingly limited its aim. The realm of nature consisted of material bodies interacting mechanically by contact and impact and could be studied by science.

The realm of spirit—including, at least, the intellectual activities of human beings— was a distinct and separate object of speculation to which the categories of physical science were not directly relevant.

And thus you see how the concept of matter is influenced by theologians to prevent a 100% materialist ontology. Cartesian Dualism helped out.


The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: Thank you...:-)
[13:20] herman Bergson: If you like...the floor is yours..
[13:20] Doodus Moose: it's distressing to think of spiritual awareness as chemical transactions
[13:20] Mick Nerido: sort of like seperation of church and state...
[13:20] herman Bergson: why is that Doodus?
[13:21] Doodus Moose: hnmmmm, you'd have to experience a spiritual situation firsthand to understand it
[13:21] herman Bergson: That is an argument of authority….invalid
[13:22] Doodus Moose: i know - that's why i'm going to be quiet on this one
[13:22] Doodus Moose: :-)
[13:22] herman Bergson smiles
[13:22] herman Bergson: a pitty...
[13:22] herman Bergson: For it interests me very much why it is distressing...
[13:22] herman Bergson: what is the distress?
[13:23] Doodus Moose: that would be the start of an all-night discussion
[13:23] Mick Nerido: I have had spiritual or mystical experiences that could be matter based.
[13:23] Doodus Moose: distressing because everything seems reduced to cause-and-effect
[13:23] herman Bergson: Give it a try, for I think this is a quintessential point for many people
[13:23] herman Bergson: Not necessarily Dodus....
[13:24] herman Bergson: Doodus
[13:24] herman Bergson: Quantum Mechanics already has demonstrated that mater not absolutely causal is..
[13:25] herman Bergson: Matter in a modern sense is not just the simple biliard ball causality like Hume thought
[13:25] herman Bergson: Besides that....
[13:26] herman Bergson: Like liquidity is caused by H2O molecules
[13:26] herman Bergson: Consciousness can be causes by our brain....
[13:27] herman Bergson: But that doesn't mean that we know what consciousness is...
[13:27] herman Bergson: We'll spend a number of lectures on that concept...
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I sorry..
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i am I'm Sorry! i have to leave early
[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next week
[13:28] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:28] Doodus Moose: bye. Gemma
[13:28] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Bye ! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): let us know about summer break Herman
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ok cu gemma
[13:28] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Bye Gemma
[13:28] herman Bergson: Be well Gemma :-)
[13:28] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Mhh *Kiss* Bye bye!
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: hugs
[13:28] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye Gemma
[13:28] herman Bergson: Today the question is...what is matter...
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: that im good at if anyone
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: lol
[13:29] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can i ask a question in dutch please?
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: but well matter is everything you can touch basically
[13:29] Bejiita Imako: that have substance
[13:30] herman Bergson: Most important point till 1700 is that it was defined in such a way that mental phenomena would not be mental to safe the mind and the soul
[13:31] herman Bergson: I almost would ask you all: What is the matter?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Quiet today :-)
[13:31] Doodus Moose: (hi, hi)
[13:31] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well that suits me, for I have guests in RL :-)
[13:32] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): matter is waar de..het..of een..voorkan staan...is een gat ook matter?..een niets met iets er omheen?...in het universum zijn ' gaten' is dat ook matter?
[13:32] herman Bergson: and they make a lot of noise disrupting my concentration :-)
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: well matter is interesting topic for sure and what differs that from nomn material stuff
[13:33] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): sorry had to write that in dutch
[13:33] herman Bergson: I suggest we continue our discussion on matter next class....
[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and is the higgs boson the cause for matter having substance, are the Higgs the difference between matter and energy, thats a question i would want to know kind of soon
[13:33] Qwark Allen: Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist. Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume.
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:34] Qwark Allen: from wikipedia
[13:34] Mick Nerido: matter can be changed into energy..
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark...I saw that...... not really a satisfactory definition...
[13:34] herman Bergson: A good thing to look into next lecture...
[13:34] Bejiita Imako: ant the opposite around
[13:35] Qwark Allen: good :-)
[13:35] herman Bergson: Allow me to thank you for today and dismiss class.....
[13:36] herman Bergson: RL environment is to disrupting now for me :-)
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: hehe ok
[13:36] Qwark Allen: you welcome herman
[13:36] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Thank you herman.
[13:36] Qwark Allen: interesting as allways
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: well have to deal with that sometimes too
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman:-)
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: interesting again
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:36] Qwark Allen: i like this thematic
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: as always
[13:36] Lizzy Pleides: thank you, .. and sorry for being late, byee
[13:36] Bejiita Imako ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪
[13:36] Doodus Moose: Good Show Professor, let your guests know you are appreciated!
[13:36] herman Bergson: SO thank you all..hope tosee you on a quiet Thursday again...
[13:36] 방랑자 (tauto): thank you herman
[13:36] herman Bergson: I will Doodus
[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman...fijne avond nog
[13:37] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye CLASS :-)
[13:37] 방랑자 (tauto): bye all
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: bye
[13:37] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): I'll do some reading up by next week :-))
[13:37] Mick Nerido: thanks bye
[13:38] Julie Bluebird (lolli.bluebird): Bye for now.
[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: good byee
[13:39] herman Bergson: Hi Lizzy