In seinem scheinbaren Nonsens entlarvt der Vortrag tief verwurzelte Annahmen über das Denken, die Subjektivität und die Erkenntnisfähigkeit des Menschen. Der spielerische Ton verführt zum Lachen – doch wer genauer hinhört, erkennt die provokante philosophische Tiefe. Es ist ein Text, der nicht nur unterhalten, sondern vor allem zum Nachdenken anregen will – über das, was wir zu wissen glauben, und das, was sich möglicherweise nie vollständig wissen lässt.
Meine lieben Freunde!
Schön, dass Sie wieder hier sind. Und noch schöner ist, dass Sie daran gedacht haben, auch Ihre Gehirne mitzubringen. Möglicherweise waren es aber auch Ihre Gehirne selbst, die hier dabei sein wollten und an sich gedacht haben. Wie dem auch sei, am Ende sind alle hier. Nun habe ich das Wichtigste noch gar nicht erwähnt. Denn was nützt es, dass Sie Ihr Gehirn dabeihaben, aber vielleicht wichtige Gehirneigenschaften zu Hause vergessen haben? So ein Materieklumpen ist an sich ja nicht so viel wert. Haben Sie es bemerkt? 'Materie' und 'an sich' in einem Satz. Spaß muss sein. Aber weiter. Die wichtigste Gehirneigenschaft ist sicherlich der Geist. Vielleicht aber auch das Bewusstsein? Ich muss zugeben, da kenne ich mich nicht so gut aus und überlasse diese feinen Unterscheidungen gern fähigeren Geistern und Bewusstheiten. Dagegen ist eine der für mich wichtigsten Gehirneigenschaften die Farbe Blau. Warum auch nicht? Und das Lustige dabei ist, Sie können sich mein Gehirn anschauen ohne zu wissen, ob ich die Farbe Blau wirklich dabeihabe. Da müssen Sie sich ganz auf meine Aussage verlassen. Letztendlich steht nur fest, dass ich die Farbe Blau entweder dabeihabe oder nicht dabeihabe. Tertium non datur. Und da auch das Gehirn im Sinne eines Materiehäufchens dem Drittensatz gehorcht, denn entweder ist etwas vorhanden bzw. aktiv, oder es ist etwas nicht vorhanden bzw. inaktiv, ist die logische Voraussetzung gegeben, um das Vorhandensein der Farbe Blau als Eigenschaft meines Gehirns feststellen zu können. Das war kleiner Ausflug in eine Welt, in der Affirmation und Negation die letzte Grundlage allen Denkens bilden. Und Sie wissen ganz genau, meinen lieben Freude, warum diese Weltvorstellung so verführerisch ist: Es gibt für diese Art des Denkens keine prinzipielle Einschränkung hinsichtlich unserer Zugriffsmöglichkeiten auf die Welt! Insofern bin ich sicher, dass wenn ich mal nicht genau weiß, ob ich die Farbe Blau, als eine der wichtigsten Eigenschaften meines Gehirns, nicht doch zu Hause vergessen habe, es in naher Zukunft möglich sein wird, mittels eines kleinen Scans, die Existenz der Farbe Blau als Eigenschaft meines Gehirns festzustellen, oder auch nicht festzustellen. Gute Nacht!
The color blue as an important brain property
A deceptively light-hearted lecture that masks a deep exploration of philosophical issues surrounding mind, matter, logic, and perception. Through humor, absurdity, and paradox, it challenges the listener to reconsider what can truly be known or proven about consciousness. The use of irony and playful logic reveals the fragility of our conceptual frameworks—and invites us, with a smile, to dwell more comfortably in uncertainty.
My dear friends!
Nice to have you back. And what's even nicer is that you remembered to bring your brains too. But it may also have been your brains themselves that wanted to be here and thought of themselves. Anyway, everyone ends up here. I haven't mentioned the most important thing yet. After all, what's the use of having your brain with you, but perhaps forgetting important brain properties at home? Such a lump of matter is not worth that much in itself. Did you notice? 'matter' and 'in-itself' in one sentence. Just kidding. But let's move on. The most important feature of the brain is certainly the mind. But what about consciousness? I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable about these 'in-itselves' and I'm happy to leave these fine distinctions to more capable minds and consciousnesses. On the other hand, one of the most important brain properties for me is the color blue. Why not? And the funny thing is, you can look at my brain and not know if I actually have the color blue with me. You have to rely entirely on what I said. Ultimately, the only thing that is certain is that I either have the color blue with me or I don't have it with me. Tertium non datur. And since the brain also obeys the principle of the excluded third in the sense of a heap of matter, because something is either present or active, or something is not present or inactive, the logical prerequisite is given to be able to determine the presence of the color blue as a property of my brain. That was a small excursion into a world in which affirmation and negation form the ultimate basis of all thinking. And you know exactly, my dear friends, why this world view is so seductive: There are no fundamental restrictions for this type of thinking with regard to our access to the world! In this respect, I am sure that if I do not know exactly whether I forgot the color blue, as one of the most important properties of my brain, at home, that in the near future it will be possible, by means of a small scan, to determine the existence of the color blue as a property of my brain, or not to determine it. Good night!
Analysis
1. Form and Tone: Philosophical Comedy
At first glance, the lecture seems like a casual and playful address to an audience, peppered with jokes and absurdities. However, beneath the surface lies a deliberate engagement with core philosophical questions. The speaker uses a tongue-in-cheek tone to make abstract topics—such as the nature of the mind, epistemological access, and logical principles—more accessible. This rhetorical strategy recalls traditions of philosophical irony found in thinkers like Socrates, Ludwig Wittgenstein, or even Douglas Hofstadter, where apparent nonsense reveals deeper conceptual insight.
The first lines already destabilize the listener’s expectations. While the speaker thanks the audience for bringing their "brains," he quickly turns the statement on its head by suggesting that it may have been their brains that chose to attend, introducing the theme of agency and identity in a humorous yet puzzling way.
2. Core Themes and Philosophical Undercurrents
a) The Mind-Brain Problem
The lecture lightly skirts around the classic philosophical dilemma: What is the relationship between the physical brain and the non-physical mind or consciousness? By distinguishing between the brain as a "lump of matter" and its more intangible "properties" like the mind or consciousness, the speaker echoes Cartesian dualism but without committing to a specific theory. The disclaimer—“I’m not very knowledgeable about these ‘in-itselves’”—serves both as a comic shrug and a critique of philosophical overprecision.
b) The Absurdity of Subjective Qualia
The idea that one of the brain’s most important properties is “the color blue” pushes the lecture into absurdist territory. Yet, this claim isn't as ridiculous as it sounds—it metaphorically references qualia, the individual subjective experiences of perception (like seeing "blue"). The speaker notes that no one can verify whether his brain "has" blue simply by looking at it. This lightly invokes Thomas Nagel’s famous essay What is it like to be a bat?—raising doubts about the objectivity of conscious experience.
c) Logic and the Excluded Middle
The invocation of the Latin phrase Tertium non datur ("a third is not given") alludes to the law of the excluded middle in classical logic: every proposition is either true or false. The speaker applies this to the question of whether the brain “has” the color blue or not. The absurd application of a logical principle to a subjective mental state subtly critiques the overreach of formal logic when applied to complex human experiences.
d) Rational Optimism and Scientific Reductionism
By the end of the lecture, the speaker suggests that soon we may be able to determine, “by means of a small scan,” whether someone’s brain possesses the color blue. This ending parodies contemporary faith in neuroscientific technologies and their ability to render the inner self legible. The lecture gently mocks this belief, hinting at the hubris of a worldview in which every phenomenon, including subjective color experiences, can be reduced to binary, detectable states.
3. Humor as Philosophical Method
Humor in this lecture is not merely for entertainment—it serves as a mode of philosophical inquiry. The absurd premises (e.g., the brain “having” the color blue) draw attention to the assumptions we often make without question: that consciousness can be measured, that logical laws universally apply, or that science will eventually explain everything. By using exaggerated, playful examples, the speaker encourages skepticism toward neat conceptual models of the mind.
The juxtaposition of philosophical terminology with casual, almost childlike musings (“Why not?”) highlights the limits of language when grappling with the ineffable. Even the closing “Good night!” feels less like a conclusion than a wink at the audience—an implicit reminder that some questions are best left open.
Conclusion
In sum, it is a deceptively light-hearted lecture that masks a deep exploration of philosophical issues surrounding mind, matter, logic, and perception. Through humor, absurdity, and paradox, it challenges the listener to reconsider what can truly be known or proven about consciousness. The use of irony and playful logic reveals the fragility of our conceptual frameworks—and invites us, with a smile, to dwell more comfortably in uncertainty.