skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Discussion about dualism tends to start from the assumption of the reality of the physical world, and then to consider arguments for why the mind cannot be treated as simply part of that world.The reason for this is, that common sense tells us that there is only this physical world around us, where we live in. We have no evidence of the existence of anything non-physical.This leads to the almost "default option" of some kind of materialist ontology in which the mental and the physical are one category eventually.However, because this is philosophy, the arguments never stop. We still can ask ourselves the question: is there a justification for treating the mind as different of our physical world?The position Descartes (1596 - 1650) took is almost abandoned. The idea that there are two real substances, a physical and a non physical, is not corroborated by any scientific research.Actually, this is a trivial statement, because how can you observe non-material things, when the theories to interpret observations are completely deduces from the laws of physics?Yet there are words in our language that make perfect sense, but don't belong to the realm of physics. At least, not yet. The hardest concept for a modern materialist theory is "consciousness". How do molecules produce what we call consciousness?In its wake follow the whole range of meaningful psychological or mentalistic predicates. A predicate operates only on the linguistic level. It describes some typical feature of for instance an object: "the grass is GREEN" or "I feel HAPPY".What is the philosophical hot potato here? A full description of the world should eventually be formulated in pure physical statements, a materialist says. Thus, all predicates should be derived from the realm of the physical.This means that all psychological or mentalistic predicates eventually have to reduced to physicalistic predicates. Is this going to work?This means that psychological predicates carry no more information than the physicalistic to what they are reduced (translated).An example of what we believe to be a true type reduction outside psychology is the case of water, where water is always H2O: something is water if and only if it is H2O.If one were to replace the word ‘water’ by ‘H2O’, it is plausible to say that one could convey all the same information. But that doesn't work in a lot of sciences.Take 'hurricane' or 'infectious disease'. Impossible to reduce these terms to always one and the same set of physicalistic predicates. No two hurricanes are alike….and yet identified as hurricanes.These words are classified as functional terms rather than natural kind terms. That means, we use these words rather to tell what such a specific state as a hurricane or disease DOES.In that way we can describe our world with our language. Not two hurricanes are the same, but in what they do they are pretty alike: cause a lot of damage. The same with infectious diseases.There is no particular description, using the language of physics for instance, that would do the work of the word "hurricane" like "H2O" does the work of the word "water".To get back to where we started, we could conclude then, that we have descriptive words in our language of their own kind, with which we scientifically describe our world.In our case on the one hand psychological or mentalistic predicates and on the other hand physicalistic predicates. And the tough nut the materialist has to crack is to answer the question what these psychological predicates describe in our world, if they can not be reduced to physicalistic predicates.It does not mean, that psychological predicates describe real things, in the sense that when I say "I feel happy" you could dissect me and find this feeling of happiness somewhere in my body.It means that a full description of the world apparently needs to make use of more than only physical predicates. We have to use these psychological predicates too. In other words, we have at least Predicate Dualism.I guess, now you have enough to think about ….. what is language here doing? And is this reduction to physicalistic predicates really a must for genuine materialism. We'll learn in the future.Tho it can be said that nowadays materialism seems to be a kind of "default option", it doesn't mean that Dualism has thrown its towel in the ring already. So, we are not yet done with dualism.The Discussion[13:24] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: well..one criticism on what you said..you said : you said there are words which make perfect sense....[13:24] herman Bergson: Any question or remark...the floor is yours[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: sense yes but why and how perfect...[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: is that meaning that immanence of our psychologic and consciousness exist? as the from only?[13:25] Mick Nerido: The dualist view is ancient and the language reflects it...[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Baldur...that is the point....in what way make mentalistic words sense[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: we use the word water for h2o with bacteria in and without[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: second. feel happy is biochemically measurable…[13:25] Ciska Riverstone: yes Mick[13:25] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think that is a manner of speaking[13:25] Alaya Kumaki: the form only, immanent consciousness?[13:26] herman Bergson: To Baldur....[13:26] herman Bergson: that is actually the whole issue....[13:26] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): you said..i feel happy, but for you it can be a different feeling then for me...it's not for everybody the same[13:26] herman Bergson: there is a correlation between MRI scan results and the I feel happy" statement[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje...that too is an issue....[13:27] herman Bergson: I can write DOG dog DoG....[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes we went through that before[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): feelings[13:27] herman Bergson: How many words did I type?[13:28] Mick Nerido: Someday we may be able to measure degrees of "happiness" scientifically[13:28] Bejiita Imako: must get used to this smaller keyboard [13:28] BALDUR Joubert: q[13:28] Alaya Kumaki: can words works as a scan does? spelling happiness?[13:28] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): large hands bejiita??[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: how mick? we can only measure the material aspect -but we do not know how another person really feels?[13:29] Bejiita Imako: bought a smaller keyboard that i can have n the lap and thus lay against the tv screen[13:29] Bejiita Imako: the table s 90n degrees to it[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: its true, we cannot really find out unless the pother person manifest it clearly cisca[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: smile..ciska..we come to the i-subjective problem?[13:29] Alaya Kumaki: manifestation, in physical...[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: jupp[13:30] Mick Nerido: We could measure seratonan levels and match it to a test subjects feelings[13:30] herman Bergson: yes Ciska refers to the famous article of Nagel about how does it feel to be a bat?[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: smile..we can find out what we have in common..but not what is going on exactly..[13:30] Bejiita Imako: us have often thought about this as well[13:31] Bejiita Imako: when i feel good and my friend feel good don we feel exactly the same feeling[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...calm down plz......[13:31] herman Bergson: :-)[13:31] BALDUR Joubert: if we takle the question beyond the neuron lever to the atomic level, we agree at loss:9[13:31] Bejiita Imako: but since we react to the feeling in much the same ways should be kind of similar i guess[13:31] Bejiita Imako: and also other people[13:31] herman Bergson: your remarks touch an dozens of subjects and questions that will be treated here in future lectures...[13:31] Doodus Moose: yes,, Baldur [13:31] Alaya Kumaki: yes we have the same range of feeling actually[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: yes bejiita but this is and stays an assumption[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: lol... looking forward to 2015[13:32] herman Bergson: pretty optimistic Baldur..thnx[13:32] BALDUR Joubert: well i'm too old to think any further:9[13:32] herman Bergson: Let's get back to the main issue of today....[13:33] Mick Nerido: There are several H20 like heavy water[13:33] herman Bergson: the point is that we have a meaningful language with psychological and physicalistic predicates[13:33] BALDUR Joubert: h202[13:33] herman Bergson: that language makes sense and describes our world[13:34] Bejiita Imako: heavy water is not H20 its D20[13:34] Bejiita Imako: D= deuterium[13:34] herman Bergson: but when our world is only matter...eventually we could reduce all statements to physical statements[13:34] Mick Nerido: we need new words[13:34] herman Bergson: and the question is.....can this be done..?[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: bows my head in shame bejiita[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Mick...that is what Patricia Churchland says....[13:35] herman Bergson: Like we explained things in the Middle Ages using words of witchcraft...[13:35] Bejiita Imako: however d is H but a different isotope[13:35] Kai Boissay: im sure language can describe our world but not everyone can understand it the same way.[13:35] Mick Nerido: If it's all physical it can be written as a formula[13:35] herman Bergson: we now have the language of physics...[13:35] herman Bergson: the language of witchcraft is completely gone[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: but it must be understood the same way[13:35] Alaya Kumaki: what does poetry is saying, , is it physical?[13:36] Bejiita Imako: a and magic as well[13:36] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): language is a living thing..it changes constantly[13:36] Bejiita Imako: magics = breaking of physical laws = impossible[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje.....because our look at the world changes ...new scientific insights etc.[13:36] Alaya Kumaki: breaking laws it was? i didnt know that[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: i thought that it was illusion tricks[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: so.... what could be understood by physics doesn't mean it can have logical conclusions about the philosophy of who we are and why we are and how we know we are[13:37] herman Bergson: yes Ayala....real magic ignores all laws of physics...[13:37] Bejiita Imako: Magic is the claimed art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science[13:37] Mick Nerido: Advanced tech seems like magic[13:37] Alaya Kumaki: real ? magic was real?[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: davids copperfield?[13:38] herman Bergson: no...magic was imagination only[13:38] Alaya Kumaki: lol[13:38] herman Bergson: A Harry Potter world :-)[13:38] Bejiita Imako: but with todays parelerators u can do alchemy, transformone basic element to another[13:38] Alaya Kumaki: language solicit imagination always [13:38] Bejiita Imako: particle accelerator[13:38] Mick Nerido: A person from say the 15th century would think SL was magic[13:39] herman Bergson: He would not recognize it Mick..[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: language is a problemn[13:39] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): Catweezel[13:39] Mick Nerido: No recognise or understand it?[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes ^_^[13:39] Alaya Kumaki: maybe it was some science, but not understood, as when you drink tea,, you become energetic, one may imagine that you have been given strength ....[13:40] Alaya Kumaki: imagination is also a problem[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: our mind is 500 or more years behind words used today[13:40] Doodus Moose: Baldur :-)[13:40] BALDUR Joubert: imagination is what got us to where we are..:)[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes...like the Man from the MIddle Ages has no language for what he sees in our world...[13:41] Alaya Kumaki: well if we make a physical language, can we exclude imagination from the language?[13:41] Bejiita Imako: no, he would certainly thing that our stuff is pure magic[13:41] Bejiita Imako: a computer for ex[13:41] Bejiita Imako: a thinking machine[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: carnap was concious of the lack in our language..[13:41] Bejiita Imako: and even electricity[13:42] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): we can't understand the language used in the middle ages either[13:42] herman Bergson: We never can exclude imagination Ayala.....that is hard wired into our brain[13:42] Mick Nerido: And all this is just matter not magic[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: not for technology..but philosophy[13:43] herman Bergson: At least now we have a nice problem derived from dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: Dualism is so deeply embeded in our language...[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: imagination os the capacity of your brain to connect to neurons containing information which are not subject to logic[13:44] BALDUR Joubert: but can create new ideas[13:44] herman Bergson: That is a way of putting it Baldur[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): imagination brought us here..were we are now[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: isn't that just describing the process?[13:45] herman Bergson: You could say that scientific method puts the result of our imagination to the test[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: we have something which we can sense but not explain[13:45] Mick Nerido: The philosophical question is why is there consciousness?[13:45] herman Bergson: yes Mick...a huge question....[13:46] herman Bergson: if all is matter...how can matter produce what we experience as consciousness[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: a well known philosopher says the i-identification is a continuous process[13:46] herman Bergson: you mean personal identity Baldur?[13:47] Mick Nerido: Matter is only about 1% of the universe[13:47] Alaya Kumaki: this is what i was thinking about consciousness as a captation tool,, inside us,, immanent ,[13:47] Alaya Kumaki: but not an object[13:47] herman Bergson: That doesn't matter Mick...we aren't even 0.00000000000000001% of the universe :-)[13:47] Bejiita Imako: acording to scientists the matter we can see and interact with is only 4 %[13:48] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): suddenly i feel very! small...[13:48] Bejiita Imako: but how can there be 96% of some strange stuff that is invisible a cannot be felt or detected at all[13:48] herman Bergson smiles[13:48] Bejiita Imako: that dark matter[13:48] Alaya Kumaki: its relative, you can look at the bacterias and feel big[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): and micro stuff[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): out in space etc[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i have to leave now[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I sorry..[13:48] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): I'm Sorry![13:48] Mick Nerido: How could we think that 96% of the unknown is not affecting us?[13:48] herman Bergson: I think that this is of little concern regarding the mind - body problem fortunately :-)[13:48] Doodus Moose: Bejiita - but isn't that stuff "pointed to" by mathematics?"[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ok cu gemma[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): bye gemma:)[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: bye gemma :)[13:49] Jerome Ronzales: tata[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: you know how many bacterias are on and in your body?[13:49] herman Bergson: Bye Gemma:-)[13:49] Alaya Kumaki: byby[13:49] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): iecks..[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: about a hundred times more than your body cells[13:50] herman Bergson: ok...sound like we have reached the end of our discussion on the present subject...:-)[13:51] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation....[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^[13:51] Bejiita Imako: was interesting like hell once again[13:51] Mick Nerido: Thanks great class[13:51] Doodus Moose: again, i won't sleep soundly, Professor :-)[13:51] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oo btw LHC is just about to set a new world record[13:51] herman Bergson: thank you Mick[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:51] herman Bergson: ok...which one Bejiita???[13:52] Bejiita Imako: 768 niminal bunches[13:52] Bejiita Imako: previous record was 480[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: any new erkenntnisse after the discussion? herman will translate erkenntnisse:)[13:52] Bejiita Imako: a big increase[13:52] herman Bergson: Knowlodge = Erkentniss[13:52] Alaya Kumaki: i can se if there is a bunck of it , on cartain par of my body after a bruise baldur[13:52] Doodus Moose: "insights"[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: smile close but not right doodus[13:53] herman Bergson: yes Doodus...maybe better translation[13:53] Doodus Moose: Google Translate[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: insights[13:53] BALDUR Joubert: ty[13:53] herman Bergson: insight os the correct translation indeed[13:54] herman Bergson: Well Bejiita congrats...at least I understand the difference in numbers :-)[13:54] BALDUR Joubert: words are so interesting... insight compared to knowledge...[13:54] herman Bergson: Was my typical Dutch mistake Baldur...[13:55] herman Bergson: in Dutch we have KENNIS = knowledge....is not Erkentniss[13:55] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): maar inzichten[13:55] Alaya Kumaki: poetry[13:55] BALDUR Joubert: smile..i noticed reading that many are sloppy with the meaning of words when they have a theory and try to prove it[13:55] herman Bergson: Insight is the correct translation[13:55] Bejiita Imako: aaa[13:56] herman Bergson: SL is a very good place for language education :-)[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: depends if you like english[13:56] Bejiita Imako: yes , much things u can do in here[13:56] Doodus Moose: :-)[13:56] herman Bergson: C'est vrai Ayala :-)[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: i like old english..mostly[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): i learned english here in sl..i didn't speak a word[13:57] herman Bergson: Lucky me, I happen to like it :-)[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: not modern one[13:57] herman Bergson: wow...Beertje[13:57] Kai Boissay: english isnt my first language and this is my first time attending this class , and its very interesting.[13:57] Bejiita Imako: aa ok[13:57] Alaya Kumaki: bravo beertje[13:57] herman Bergson: Can be a challenge indeed Kai[13:57] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you:))[13:58] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
The general idea we have about ourselves is, that we have a mind and a body. They normally work together. It made Descartes (1596 -1650), a French philosopher, wonder.Mind and body were such different things. For instance, a mind is indivisible, hence indestructible, while a body is infinitely divisible.The mind is free. I can think and experience whatever I want, while the body is determined. It is a series of causal processes. I have to eat, if I don't want to starve.The mind is only "unfree" in the sense that it can not stop thinking, which brought Descartes to his famous "cogito, ergo sum". This typical feature of the mind proved our existence.My mind is directly and privately accessible for me. No one can see my thoughts, but my body is public. Everyone can see me.Thence Descartes had to conclude that the mind had to be something completely different from the body. You even can think of the mind without that body.So he stated that there are two kinds of substances in the world, a mental and a physical. The essence of the mental is "thinking" or consciousness, while the essence of the physical was extension.According to Descartes, the mental and the physical are entirely different realms. One is a realm of things that obey physical laws and occupy space. Another is a realm of ideas, sensations, and feelings that don’t even exist in space. The philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976) referred to this Cartesian Dualism and view of the mind as "the ghost in the machine" and this is exactly the situation.Our physical body is subjected to the laws of nature, while the mind, being not physical, is not. This observation leads to the most important objection to dualism.Descartes himself was well aware of the objection, which was: How can a non-physical substance influence a physical substance. There is not a single law of nature that answers that question.He literally has tried to find the answer by dissecting real human brains. He discovered that in the brain everything comes in pairs, a left and right hemisphere and so on, but at the base of the cortex he found one single little part: the pineal gland.There it was where mind and body touched each other. However, this was a weak answer, because the question was not WHERE mind and body were in a causal relation, but HOW the causal process could take place.This causality on which the laws of physics are based leads to another problem with dualism. This physical causality means that the body is determined. Every process is predictable.But the mind is free. We have a free will. But when everything in the physical world is determined what difference makes a so called free will then?I have direct access to my mind, but when you think of it….it is the only mind I can go to. Are there also other minds in the world? How can I be sure about that?But not only other minds are a problem. If I am locked in my own experiences, my own mind, how can I ever really know anything of the external world? In that way we end up with Skepticism.And when I stop thinking, do I stop to exist then too? When I am unconscious or asleep, what is my condition then?And then there is the "I" in the "I think, therefore I exist". Where did Descartes find that "I"? What is it? Where does it come from.There have been written complete libraries about all these questions for Dualism and dualism had no answer. How to proof that the mental and the physical are two separate realms, which really exist and where the laws of physics only apply to one of these realms?In other words, there is hardly any scientist nowadays who believes that the mind is some kind of exclusive substance next to physical substance.The Discussion[13:25] herman Bergson: Thank you :-)[13:25] herman Bergson: The floor is yours ^_^[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: but there is no explanation what it is then[13:26] Mick Nerido: Descartes thought the soul resided in the pineal gland...[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: is there?[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i think they are finding so many connections in the mental ability to control parts of the body[13:26] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): using for people who have lost limbs etc[13:27] herman Bergson: explanation for what Ciska?[13:27] Doodus Moose: indeed, MIT has controllers where people can move things by thinking[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: for what we called mind up to now[13:27] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:27] herman Bergson: oh yes..there is...:-)[13:27] Bejiita Imako: yes[13:27] herman Bergson: but we havent yet come to that...[13:27] Bejiita Imako: have seen such things[13:28] herman Bergson: it is the whole reason of this project :-)[13:28] Bejiita Imako: kind of interesting[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: so at the moment you want us to accept that there is something else you are going to explain later on - right?[13:28] herman Bergson: No Mick...the soul was not in the pineal gland according to Descartes[13:29] herman Bergson: of course Ciska..[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: ok[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: I'll wait for the alternative then ;)[13:29] herman Bergson smiles[13:29] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:30] herman Bergson: I don't give all my treasures away that easily Ciska...[13:30] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: well you want me to give something up[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: so i have to get something for it[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: thats economics ;))[13:30] herman Bergson: But ..main point today is...substance duality[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: (teasing of course)[13:30] Mick Nerido: The world is so filled with opposites light and dark, male and female, mind and body that leads to dualism[13:31] Doodus Moose: the nature of light itself, lends to dualism[13:31] herman Bergson: The idea that the mind is another kind of substance than molecules[13:31] Mick Nerido: Yes Doodus[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: i think its just a matter of language... buddhism for example speaks of bodymind[13:31] herman Bergson: waves and particles..isnt it Doodus[13:32] Doodus Moose: correct[13:32] Bejiita Imako: yea[13:32] Bejiita Imako: s[13:32] herman Bergson: but that is just a technical issue, I would say[13:33] Doodus Moose: again, how would Descartes describe the situation where a person could move a mouse cursor with some equipment attached to his head?[13:33] herman Bergson: you cant compare that to the mind - body relation, I would say[13:33] Mick Nerido: Matter may not be what it seem with so much unknown in the universe ie. dark matter and dark energy[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:33] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): he would faint[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma![13:34] herman Bergson: Well...the question ..."What is matter" is a complete different story Mick...[13:34] herman Bergson: It has no effect on our problem today, I think[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: mh... if we consist of matter and matter is in our brain... and our mind is our brain[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: matter matters.[13:35] Ciska Riverstone whispers: no?[13:35] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:35] herman Bergson: yes Ciska...[13:36] Bejiita Imako: well matter study is a fav hobby for me[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:36] herman Bergson: we have to assume that what we call the mind is just a feature of the brain..[13:36] Bejiita Imako: and antimatter for that part as well[13:36] Flo (flora.jewell) is now known as Flora Jewell.[13:37] Mick Nerido: And quantum physics is an issue also[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: yes Mick think so too[13:37] herman Bergson: well..only to some extend Mick...[13:37] Mick Nerido: Just plating devils advocate[13:37] herman Bergson: it doesn't change the fact that the mind is a feature of the brain[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: no not at all[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: it asks how[13:38] herman Bergson: it may be involved in the discussion about free will[13:38] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): complex[13:38] herman Bergson: We will get to that certainly[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: very, Gemma[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma....[13:39] herman Bergson: I sometimes don't know where to begin....[13:39] Ciska Riverstone: can imagine that[13:39] Bejiita Imako: mm[13:39] herman Bergson: .[13:39] Bejiita Imako: aaa puh new keyboard works again[13:39] herman Bergson: there are so many issues , all related to each other[13:39] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): yes[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hit num lock on my new mini keyboard, no wonder it started behaving strang[13:39] herman Bergson: But I'll do my best ^_^[13:40] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): :_)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: complex as the linkings in the brain ;)[13:40] Ciska Riverstone: and we appreciate that ![13:40] herman Bergson: Well..yet this is an important issue..dualism...[13:40] herman Bergson: it means...if we reject it as an explanation of the mind...[13:41] herman Bergson: then there is not such a thing as a material body and an immaterial mind[13:41] Jerome Ronzales: is it right to say that Dualism is a Absolutism?[13:41] herman Bergson: it also means...and that was what Descartes hoped to save...there is no immaterial soul[13:42] herman Bergson: no Jerome..makes little sense..I am sorry[13:42] Mick Nerido: And yet there is an immaterial quality to the mind[13:42] Jerome Ronzales: ok[13:43] herman Bergson: I will disagree with you Mick.. :-)[13:43] herman Bergson: that sounds like property dualism[13:43] herman Bergson: that means...[13:43] herman Bergson: ok...no mind substance...[13:43] herman Bergson: but the mind is a property ,,a special property of the brain[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: Mick - maybe we see it like that cause we see that matter reacts to the same things in the same way wether decisions seem not to[13:44] herman Bergson: it is not the brain itself..but a special "mind" property[13:44] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): can you locate the mind property?[13:45] herman Bergson: Well Beertje...that has taken a while...[13:45] herman Bergson: the egyptians didn't give a dime for the brain...[13:45] herman Bergson: their Pharaos were burried without a brain[13:45] Mick Nerido: We can see the brain at work with brain scans[13:45] herman Bergson: The Greek thought it was located in the chest or abdomen..:-)[13:46] Ciska Riverstone: yes but we still do not know why it fires which neuron - as far as i know mick[13:46] herman Bergson: In the Middle Ages they began to believe that the mind was in the head[13:47] herman Bergson: No. I wouldn't say so Ciska...[13:47] herman Bergson: We really know where what functions are located where in the brain[13:48] herman Bergson: Look at the charts on the wall for instance[13:48] herman Bergson: That doesn't mean we understand the brain as such...:-)[13:49] herman Bergson: But we have soem insight[13:49] Doodus Moose: we might all use the same parts to walk, but what is "programmed" in the reasoning section is somewhat individual[13:49] Mick Nerido: There is global theory and another that says specific areas do specific functions[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: i meant the individual thing - yes doodus[13:51] herman Bergson: OK...let's conclude that we are not inclined to accept substance dualism as an option to explain the mind[13:51] herman Bergson: at least...that is MY point of view[13:51] Doodus Moose: :-)[13:51] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] Bejiita Imako: oki[13:51] herman Bergson: Deal Bejiita ^_^[13:52] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:52] Mick Nerido: Ok, but was Spinosa's mind better than Descartes? ")[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:52] Bejiita Imako: its for sure an interesting topic[13:52] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): different maybe[13:52] Ciska Riverstone: definitivly gemma[13:52] herman Bergson: better means that you have criteria to test the difference[13:53] herman Bergson: wehat are they Mick?[13:54] Mick Nerido: They both lived in Holland, most of their lives also...funny[13:54] herman Bergson smiles[13:55] herman Bergson: Both didnt wear wooden shoes or loved tulips :-)[13:55] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): WaaaHaHAhahAHA! AhhhhHAhahhAHhahHAH! haha![13:55] Bejiita Imako: hahahahahahahahaha[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: hahahahahaaaa[13:55] herman Bergson: so I guess they were equal partners in this matter[13:55] Bilthor Esharham: *** HOHOHO THAT IS A GOOD ONE !!! ***[13:55] Mick Nerido: They found a friendly intellectual community I would guess[13:56] herman Bergson: Oh yes..[13:56] Bejiita Imako: ah[13:56] herman Bergson: But the fact that the one had another idea than the other doesnt make him bette or worse..[13:57] herman Bergson: scientifically you could ask the question....who was closer to how things really are[13:57] herman Bergson: but in those days they only had their own brain....[13:57] herman Bergson: their imagination..[13:58] Mick Nerido: Good point herman[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): herman[13:58] herman Bergson: like even the Greeks like Democritus, when I am not mistaken, imagened that the world was a collection of atoms[13:58] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i should make it thursday[13:58] herman Bergson: Or Leibniz thought it were monads[13:59] herman Bergson: Glad you were back again Gemma..missed you[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:59] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ LOL ♥[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): had a good time away tho[13:59] Bejiita Imako: hehehe[13:59] herman Bergson: Sure :-)[13:59] Ciska Riverstone: :) great gemma[13:59] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): saw lots of birds[14:00] Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): 22 species of warbler[14:00] Doodus Moose: :-0[14:00] Bejiita Imako: aa ok[14:00] Bejiita Imako: nice[14:00] Mick Nerido: Where?[14:01] herman Bergson: Well..I gues it is time to dismiss class then...[14:01] Bejiita Imako: ah[14:01] herman Bergson: Now that Gemma is gone ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: again very interesting[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gave me some more to think about ㋡[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: very interesting - thank you herman[14:01] herman Bergson: thank you Bejiita[14:01] Doodus Moose: Thanks, Professor :-)[14:01] Mick Nerido: Bye, thanks[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: bye Mick[14:01] Bejiita Imako: tine to head on I guess[14:02] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[14:02] :: Beertje :: (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman..it was very interesting again[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye all[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hugs[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:02] Ciska Riverstone: bye Bejiita[14:02] Doodus Moose: ....surrounded by .......particles......[14:02] Bilthor Esharham: Very interesting...very thanks professor......)))[14:02] Jerome Ronzales: bye´[14:02] herman Bergson: Tahnk you Bilthor[14:02] herman Bergson: Thank[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye professor[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: bye all~[14:03] Bilthor Esharham: bye bye....Auf Wiedersehen[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Jerome[14:03] Jerome Ronzales: cya next time~
Sofar we have focused on how our brain is wired to generate our mind and our supersense, our ability to believe in the supernatural. Today we'll have a closer look at the mind itself.In the first place we instinctively try to figure out what’s on each other’s minds. What is going on in the other, so that we can come up with the right response in a debate or a negotiation or in a counseling session.We are mind-readers, but of course not perfect ones. Nevertheless, it is easier to understand others as beings motivated by minds rather than the unsavory alternative: mindless beings, sophisticated robots, or well-dressed zombies. To be able to read the mind of others we focus primarily on the face of the other and secondly on the movements of the other. We have learnt that movements have a goal and that there is an intention behind.The brain is wired to concentrate on faces. Like we are able to see faces in the clouds or in creepy dark shadows…. The fusiform gyrus of the brain (an area just behind your ears) is active whenever you look at faces.When this part of the brain gets damaged you will have difficulty in recognizing faces. It even can be that serious, that you don't recognize your own face in the mirror.From the beginning of our existence faces and movement are a sign of the other mind, of a person with intentions and beliefs. And our basic strategy is to read the mind of the other.Evolutionary our ability of mind-reading is an important tool in the group, to be able to anticipate what the other will do next. We naturally assume that others are motivated by their mind. This is what Dan Dennett calls adopting “the intentional stance.”Thus we attribute beliefs and desires to agents, as well as some intelligence and the funny thing is that these agents do not have to be only human.A smart manufacturer of vacuum cleaners put a face on its HVR 200-22 model and a name: "Henry". The result is that people start to talk about Henry as the dedicated servant whenever complains.And there goes our supersense again. The intentional stance is just a comfortable way of talking about and interacting with the natural and artificial world.Just remember Piaget, and how he discovered the animism that is in every child. Like the intentional stance this way of thinking emerges at a very young age and creates an easy route to supernatural thinking.For those who have forgotten, "supernatural thinking" means believing in ideas that defy any law of nature. Like the idea of talking to your vacuum cleaner or your dog and then believing that is has a mind that understands.The basic conclusion is that these observations of cognitive development psychology reinforce the conviction that our brain is wired to believe in dualism: the belief that we have a body and a mind and that they are two interrelated things.It was not Descartes(1596 - 1650) who introduced dualism. It was the way he used and interpreted his mind not knowing that his brain was his mind, that introduced substance dualism: body is material, mind is….????Ever heard an elder person say "Hold on… this old carcass isn't that fast anymore?" or something the like? The implied meaning is clear: tho the mind is still young and willing, the body is old and no longer what it used to be."We treat the mind and the body as separate because that is what we experience. I am controlling my body, but I am more than just my body. We sense that we exist independently of our bodies." says Bruce Hood.To conclude for today we could say that our brain generates a dualistic experience of ourselves. What this really means we'll discuss in the next lecture.The Discussion[13:21] herman Bergson: Thank you... :-)[13:21] Adriana Jinn: thanks to you[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark..feel free[13:22] itsme Frederix: cogito ergo sum QED[13:22] Florencio Flores: *¨¨*:•.•:*¨*«´¯`•.¸¸• ☆☆☆ * S * U * P * E * R * N * A * T * U * R * A * L * ´¯`•.¸¸• *¨¨*:•[13:22] Florencio Flores: Supernatural!!![13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: it is still interesting finding out about the relationship of mind and body[13:22] itsme Frederix: sum ergo cogito?[13:22] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme...in fact that is the real thing[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: guess so itsme[13:23] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes[13:23] herman Bergson: If our thesis is, that the brian is the mind then our friend Descartes was obviously mistaken[13:23] itsme Frederix: smart thing that brain, smart move of evolution to I guess[13:24] herman Bergson: in fact Itsme this is supernatural thinking...[13:24] itsme Frederix: nothing wrong with that after all these lectures[13:24] herman Bergson: To attribute smartness to evolution...[13:24] herman Bergson: Evolution isnt smart at all ^_^[13:24] Florencio Flores: YES I BELIEVE ON THAT THE DOGS ALL ANIMALS UNDERSTAND THINKIN[13:24] itsme Frederix: sure,[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: evolution just is[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Aristotle[13:25] itsme Frederix: so we just are[13:25] itsme Frederix: happens to be[13:25] herman Bergson: You could say that yes Itsme[13:25] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed, the children of evolution[13:25] herman Bergson: and if a dog would understand thinking why doesnt it read the newspaper then?[13:26] itsme Frederix: vehicles of evolution (supernatural, elitair?)[13:26] herman Bergson: No Itsme...[13:26] Florencio Flores: THEY PREFFER TO READ OUR MOVEMENTS LIKE YOU SAID[13:26] itsme Frederix: if you think right you wouldn't read a newspaper Herman[13:26] herman Bergson: the issue here is, that supernatural thinking is in fact not good...[13:26] Florencio Flores: AND LEARN THEM[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: itsme[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: it is not good[13:27] itsme Frederix: I think we must say, supernatural thinking is neither good or bad, but its good to be aware what kind of thinking you use in circumstances[13:27] Florencio Flores: well i think this herman[13:28] herman Bergson: Ok Itsme...supernarural thinking definitely has a function[13:28] itsme Frederix: Gemma, newspapers are alays interpretation you better made yourself[13:28] AristotleVon Doobie: the question could be , is it productive or destructive[13:28] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...[13:29] herman Bergson: And the general opinion is that supernatural thinking, especially if it is religious zeal is very destructive[13:29] Bejiita Imako: a dog understands things but not as well as we do, ex you can say to a trained dog ex sit and it will do that, however you might have to bribe it some with candy in process too[13:29] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:29] Adriana Jinn: i think so herman[13:29] Bejiita Imako: or even learn them do advanced tricks[13:29] itsme Frederix: evolution has both sides productive and destructive,[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: is the dreamer in a state of supersense, before they invents[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Bekita,but that is all based on training only[13:30] Bejiita Imako: aa yes[13:30] itsme Frederix: herman, can you quantify "general opinion" fact please not hyperlinks into the nothing[13:30] itsme Frederix: qualify would even be better[13:31] herman Bergson: well...general opinion in the world of science[13:31] itsme Frederix: platitude[13:31] herman Bergson: ok..[13:31] herman Bergson: let is be my opinion then[13:31] itsme Frederix: supersense, science as supersense[13:31] herman Bergson: and maybe there are others that share that opnion[13:31] itsme Frederix: autority?[13:32] herman Bergson: no historical facts...[13:32] itsme Frederix: history is interpretation, facts ... which ones[13:32] Florencio Flores: here where i live dogs talks with their[13:32] Florencio Flores: ladridos[13:32] Florencio Flores: Bark[13:32] herman Bergson: The monotheistic religions, judaism, christianity and Islam have there good sides but are highly desctrucive too[13:33] Adriana Jinn: as you can interprete them yes[13:33] itsme Frederix: so atomic energy has it good side, is very destructive too[13:33] herman Bergson: this kind of supersense leads to a feeling of superiority...[13:33] herman Bergson: no...Itsme...[13:33] itsme Frederix: aha, its the way you use (or misuse) supernatural[13:33] herman Bergson: The human being who uses atomic energy can be both...not the atomic energy itself[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:34] itsme Frederix: right you are herman, I slipped away also[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: the evil of it resides in the mind[13:34] herman Bergson: As I said...supernatural beliefs mean beliefs in things that defy any natural law...[13:34] herman Bergson: no abuse there[13:35] herman Bergson: the belief in gods, afterlife, ghosts, invisible forces etc.[13:35] itsme Frederix: oke, but natural law (causality) might be a supernatural interpretation[13:35] herman Bergson: If I may rephrase your statement Itsme[13:36] itsme Frederix: I'm honored[13:36] : Florencio Flores smacks Bejiita Imako's ass!!![13:36] herman Bergson: The natural law might be defying the natural law's way of interpratation of reality...[13:36] herman Bergson: that makes little sense[13:37] itsme Frederix: well "sense", does it have to make sense (I'm serouos) blind evolution[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: how's this for supersense, regarding dualism, I feel the mind is actually separate from the brain, making us a trilogy of mind/brain/body[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: very complicated thought!!![13:37] itsme Frederix: am I stil on the topic, other might have better things to state ???[13:37] Florencio Flores: there's no evolution[13:37] Florencio Flores: simply not[13:37] Florencio Flores: people don't cares of it[13:37] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:38] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:38] herman Bergson: yes Aristotle...in my next lecture I'll address that issue in detail[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: oh good[13:38] herman Bergson: Well Itsme, I dont really get what your point is :-)[13:39] herman Bergson: Hi Rodney ^_^[13:39] itsme Frederix: ? do I ?[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: Rod Man![13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Ari[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hi Rodney[13:39] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bejita[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: Hi Rodney[13:40] Rodney Handrick: Hi Alarice[13:40] herman Bergson: Maybe things get clearer after the next lecture ^_^[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: i doubt it[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:40] itsme Frederix: oke, reading back - I guess we must not over estimate science and make that 1-1 to reality (whatever reality is)[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:40] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL they will be as clear as mud[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: it only gets more complicated as e go[13:40] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:40] Adriana Jinn: HIHI[13:40] herman Bergson: Ok....[13:41] herman Bergson: But if our main "mission" as social animals is survival then science offers an opportunity and supernatural thinking doesnt[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: yes!!![13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: amen[13:42] herman Bergson: It even could endanger our survival..[13:42] itsme Frederix: If I may interprete Herman[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: I believe it has[13:43] herman Bergson: go ahead Itsme[13:43] itsme Frederix: IF our mission is survive THEN science offers ... May I remind you that without science men lived 100.000 years, and we are now learning that we can destroy men withing a 100 years[13:44] itsme Frederix: sono "historical" fact YET[13:44] herman Bergson: interesting point Itsme, yes[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect we have not lived one iota without science[13:44] Rodney Handrick: I agree Itsme[13:44] itsme Frederix: (again of the topic I guess)[13:44] herman Bergson: But I think you are mistaken...[13:44] herman Bergson: The cave men had science too....[13:45] herman Bergson: they didnt call it that...[13:45] herman Bergson: they just carved stones, made weapons, they might have called it just knowledge[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed they did, and some great scientist in contribution[13:45] herman Bergson: so science/knowledge has been there since the beginning of mankind[13:45] itsme Frederix: that is technics[13:45] Florencio Flores: agree herman[13:45] Alarice Beaumont: think you are right Herman[13:46] Florencio Flores: human just fabricate weapons[13:46] herman Bergson: no Itme...that is human knowledge..[13:46] herman Bergson: they also learned about the healing power of certain plants...that is medicine[13:46] Alaya Kumaki: i think tha t supernatural thinking was a science that was misinterpreted or lost[13:46] itsme Frederix: He we are talking about best oppertunity to survive, and you come up with weapons?[13:46] herman Bergson: They learnt about the movement of the stars...that was astronomy[13:46] herman Bergson: and so on...[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: the very first person to rationalize was a scientist[13:47] herman Bergson: We have real knowledge and we have supernatural knowledge..[13:47] herman Bergson: and the real knowledge contributed to our survival..[13:47] herman Bergson: what we are trying to understand here is ..how to deal with supernatural knowledge...[13:48] herman Bergson: Why do we believe in the Unbelievable[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)[13:48] itsme Frederix: We have scientific/rational knowledge and supernatural/intuitive knowledge, about what we name reality[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: I don't[13:48] Florencio Flores: herman[13:48] Alarice Beaumont: getting complicated[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:48] herman Bergson: On that point we disagree Itsme[13:48] itsme Frederix: there is no such thing a "real knowledge"[13:48] Florencio Flores: do you believe in the future zen?[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: that we seem to agreee on[13:48] itsme Frederix: or everything is "real knowledge"[13:49] herman Bergson: My definition of knowledge is that its truth value can be tested...by experiment[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: historical facts appear to be real knowledge[13:49] herman Bergson: the existence of angels or ghost can not be tested...just believed in[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: yes and scientific facts[13:49] Qwark Allen: the real knowledge of today, it`s not the same as in the future[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: unless they are altered for political reasons[13:50] itsme Frederix: a fact is not the same thing as knowledge, a fact you can know and imbed in knowledge (that my opinion)[13:50] itsme Frederix: ?why can we not test for angels Herman?[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: actual experience is the closet to truth you will get[13:51] herman Bergson: well...this gets complicated..for here we come to ideas of for instance Wittgenstein....[13:51] herman Bergson: The world is all states of affair...[13:51] herman Bergson: The concept of "fact" is very difficullt[13:51] itsme Frederix: complication is not an excuse, we are trained by you so ...[13:51] herman Bergson: or to say it otherwise...where does the fact begin and where dus it end :-)[13:51] Adriana Jinn: ohhhhh[13:52] AristotleVon Doobie: in the end, we alone are the judge of fact or fiction[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme, but we loose focus, for this is an epistemologial problem[13:52] Qwark Allen: begin in real knowledge and end in the supernatural one[13:53] itsme Frederix: oke focus ... body/brain => mind[13:53] herman Bergson: Well...I would suggest to wait and see what the next lecture will bring you[13:53] Florencio Flores: brb[13:53] Qwark Allen: not always istme[13:53] herman Bergson: This was really a great discussion..especially thanx to Itsme..![13:53] itsme Frederix: quarks are different I know[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥[13:54] Bejiita Imako: hehe[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: thanks[13:54] herman Bergson: So,...may I thank you for this good debate...[13:54] Qwark Allen: your lack of knowledge there it`s not natural[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: hope to see you on Thursday[13:54] Qwark Allen: eheheh[13:54] AristotleVon Doobie: the next class is a must then......thank you, Professor[13:54] Bejiita Imako: interesting ㋡[13:54] itsme Frederix: I felt like the roman guy in Asterix&Obelix, setting up every one[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.... ^_^[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman[13:54] herman Bergson: you are welcome Gemma[13:54] Adriana Jinn: sorry have to go thank you professor and all[13:54] itsme Frederix: Herman you gave the fuel. THX[13:54] Alarice Beaumont: wow... thanks Professor[13:55] Qwark Allen: HooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooo !!!!!![13:55] AristotleVon Doobie: bye Adriana[13:55] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)[13:55] Alarice Beaumont: have a great evening Qwark :-)[13:55] Jeb Larkham: thanks Herman byeee[13:55] herman Bergson: Thank you Itsme..[13:55] Adriana Jinn: bye aristo [13:55] itsme Frederix: your welcome Herman ;)[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thanks! was so interesting!!![13:55] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[13:55] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman![13:55] Alaya Kumaki: thank yu herman, it is interesting, somthing to pond uppon, again,[13:55] herman Bergson: smiles at Bergie[13:56] itsme Frederix: Bye Bye[13:56] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ׺°”˜I'M BACK`”°º×[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-) smiles[13:56] herman Bergson: Ok Alaya...go for it ^_^[13:56] Alaya Kumaki: byby[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: wb bergie[13:56] Bejiita Imako: cxu[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL[13:56] Bejiita Imako: bye[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: nite everyone :-) see you thursday[13:57] herman Bergson: Bye all[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: very interesting Herman[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: thanks agin[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: see you Thursday[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok Aristotle...always good to sasee you here![13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: :) later
