What's up everybody, Jayce here with Jaspyscasebrakes.com. We're giving away six 824 mixture spots in this one-pack break of Chronicles NBA Fat Pack Round of Teens number nine. So again guys, the way this works guys, a high-risk high reward. First we do the break, randomize customer names and teams, distribute the hits out of the one Fat Pack here, then at the end of the break we'll randomize the customer names again in a separate Dice Roller randomizer, and the top six names will win a spot each in the mixer. We still have nine spots straight up. If you want to buy one straight up, it's $200 and we're also giving away Kobe Tops rookie card, which is a BGS9 mint. So we've got it going guys. It's a nice little mixer. So let's roll the dice and Here you go. Four and a six for ten times. Here are the customer names. Good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Oliver, down to Sean. Ten times here. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Warriors down to the Washington Wizards. All right, Oliver with the Warriors, Robert with the Blazers. So you have the Nets, Adam with the Pistons, Colin with the Jazz, Nick with the Cavs, Nick Stover that is. Scott with the Thunder, Zach Jeevan with the South Six, Obi-Wan you have the Raptors, Charles with the Hornets, Tyus with the Suns, Jeremy Portia with the Grizzlies, Nick Stover with the Bulls, Nathan with the T-Wills, Scott Varell with the Pelicans, Zach Jeevan with the Hogs, Robert with the Pacers, Nick with the Spurs, Greg with the 76ers, Nick with the Nick F, last one, multiple Lakers. See how excited you are the Clippers, Varell with the Kings, Oliver with the Magic, Scott with the Rockets, Andrew with the Bucks, Obi-Wan with the Nicks, our Nuggets and Nicks. Oliver with the Heat, Jeremy with the Mavericks and Sean you have the Wizards. So again, no trades guys, we're going to quickly do this Fat Pack and then we'll randomize customers and see who gets into the mixer.  But again if we start moving these Fat Packs pretty quickly and we sell them out and there's still nine spots left I can always create Fat Pack number 12. And take out six spots again and leave it down to three left. Now we usually take out like about depending on how many spots we give away in Fat Packs, we usually take out like Nick took out 12 spots or sorry 18 spots so that way it's a little bit lower in spots so that way you can potentially get that rolling. Hunter with the Brandon Clark, Steph Curry, that's a little score insert. RJ Barrett, little bronze. Foil Leonard, Carson Edwards and Recon. Cameradish. All right there you guys go. Now let's see who's in the mixer guys good luck. Here's the list of customer names again. Again top six get in let's roll it and we got a two and a one for three times. One, two, three, three times. Top six get in. Nick Stober you are in. Obi-Wan you are in. Obi-Wan you're in twice. Obi-Wan you're in three times. Oh my god. Robert with one and Jeremy Port. Wow three times. Two and a one congratulations. Top six are in. Another way to win going to be posted up again number 10. Make it right to fill up number 11 as well and nine spots straight up. Appreciate it guys.


OK, hi guys. Let's see. Hello. Good afternoon, class. Good afternoon. OK. So we had a couple of glitches with B-spec, but B-spec should be working fine now. And the PowerPoints for last time and for this time are all on B-spec. And each week, the PowerPoints will go on to B-spec. Getting a little bit of feedback. How's that? OK, so there are five parts to the class. What we're doing right now is we're looking at some of the foundational ideas in philosophy of mind, particularly dualism, behaviorism, and central state materialism. Central state materialism being the idea that the mind and the brain are identical. These are really basic ideas. Then we'll go on to functionalism, which is basically how most people think about the mind today. It is science's way of thinking about the brain and the mind. So it needs a lot of attention. And then we're going to go on to one of the key problems for functionalism, which is what kind of analysis it can give of consciousness is because problems about consciousness seem so intractable that the question of explaining where consciousness fits into the universe nowadays is, I guess, in anybody's list of the top 10 outstanding scientific problems is really not very easy to see how to address that. Then we'll look at the mind over time, the identity of the self, the relation between you and the person that was around 10 years ago or the person that will be around in 10 years. One makes it the same self over time. And then finally, we'll look at some general issues about the nature of psychological explanation. Get that reasonably clear as to the kind of structure we have. And so today, we're looking in foundations, we're doing dualism, and we're looking at Descartes' classic pieces from the meditations. And on Thursday, we'll go on to some kinds of behaviorism and the section from Ryle called Descartes' Smith in the Chalmers collection. So that's nine pages long, the Ryle selection. Can I just check, how many of you looked at the Descartes? Can you put your hand up if you look to the Descartes? OK, if you haven't done it, then please get onto it. Can you put your hand up if you looked at the Descartes and found it difficult? Aha. OK, so not quite everyone who looked at the Descartes found it difficult, but pretty much everyone. So I just say that to reassure you that this is perfectly normal. And the pattern you want to get into is do the reading, come to lecture. Then after the lecture, you do the reading again. And then after you've done the reading, you go to section, you discuss it. And after section, can you guess what you do next? Do the reading. So you just keep doing the reading. Each of these things, you need to read many times. And you need to discuss many times. OK, but when you get it, you will see that what these guys are doing is they are actually putting things in a straightforward way as you can. It is just that many of the ideas are quite difficult and often quite new. And quite hard to believe that they're saying that sometimes. OK, so there are three arguments in Descartes for dualism, dualism being the idea that there are two different kinds of stuff, mental stuff, and physical stuff. One argument that we looked at last time is that knowledge of your own existence is more certain than knowledge of any material thing could be. The second argument that we'll start out looking at today is that your conception of the self, your understanding of your own mind, isn't the understanding of a body. You could perfectly well conceive of yourself without a body. So body and self must be separate if you can think of one independently of thinking of the other. And the last argument is the hardest to get. It's that matter is divisible. Matter can always be cut in two, matter has parts. But the self doesn't seem to be divisible. The self doesn't seem to be made of components in the way that matter is. So you can think of it like this. We've got a firm conception of physical stuff. We know that physical stuff is made of atoms. Their atoms are all stacked together to make matter. And Descartes got these three arguments to say that whatever the mind is, it can't be physical. So he's saying there's got to be some other stuff. He doesn't call it ectoplasm, but some other kind of stuff that the mind is made of. Now the thing is that today I actually think most people would agree that most people working in the area would agree that these arguments of Descartes are extremely powerful. There's still the dominant arguments in philosophy of mind today. The thing is that Descartes' understanding of what would be implied wasn't really radical enough. He was right in thinking that these arguments are very powerful in showing that the mind doesn't seem to be anything physical. But where he went wrong was in having too easy a solution. He thought, well, there's an easy way out here. You just assume there's some non-physical stuff. That's what the mind is made of. That's what solves it all. But actually, these arguments work for ectoplasm too. Your knowledge of your own existence seems to be more certain than your knowledge of ectoplasm.  This is not some technical term I'm introducing here. Nobody has the slightest idea what this stuff might be. I mean, that's part of the problem. Sorry. Gold dust, yes, exactly. To give it a technical term, let's call it gold dust. But whatever it could be, whatever kind of stuff you postulate this to be, it's just as hard to see how the mind could be made of that. I mean, your knowledge of your own existence seems to be more certain than your knowledge of gold and dust or your knowledge of ectoplasm. It could all be a dream. The stuff about ectoplasm could all be a dream. You still know about your own mind. You can conceive of yourself without thinking about ectoplasm. Well, the last one is a bit harder. The self is indivisible. It's a bit hard to know whether ectoplasm is divisible. But I mean, since we have no idea what it is at all, it's hard to say. But these arguments are, actually, is this thing blocking off view of the screen? Yeah, would it be good if I moved this? OK, there we are. OK, does someone have a question? Yes? Yes? That's right. Well, your body's made up of cells.  That's the idea. We will spend quite a bit of time in this argument. It's not that I mean to be rushing on past them. We're going to go right back over and spend quite a bit in each of these moves. You mean this one about put in terms of ectoplasm? Yeah, I think it is. But the thing is, Descartes says, when Descartes's putting in terms of material things, the way you just put it is perfectly correct. You know of your own existence in a way that's more certain than your knowledge of any material thing could be. Right? But then Descartes says, so you know about, so you yourself must be non-physical. You yourself must be made of ectoplasm. And now we don't know what ectoplasm is, but whatever kind of stuff it is, suppose you manage to specify what ectoplasm is. Your knowledge of your own existence is still going to be more certain than your knowledge of ectoplasm. You see what I mean? I mean, if you think of it as being gold and dust, or you think of it as being some kind of gooey, sticky stuff that is observed during seaxes, or whatever you think it is, your knowledge that you exist will still be more certain by Descartes' lights than your knowledge of the existence of the ectoplasm. Once you specify what it is, yeah? Okay, we're going to keep going backwards and forwards over these arguments. I just want to suggest this is a general way of thinking about Descartes' arguments. You don't have to buy this, but this is a general way of thinking about what's valuable about them and what's not valuable. Okay, so these three arguments, let's kick off by looking at the second one. We looked at the first one last time, and at the end today, I'll come back to that first argument. You can conceive of yourself without a body, so the body and the self must be separate. I think in a way that's really pretty common sensical, that Descartes puts it like this, the fact that I can clearly and distinctly understand one thing apart from another is enough to make me certain that the two things are distinct since they're capable of being separated. So I hope what I'm about to say is not entirely autobiographical. I mean, I hope it's not just me, but here's the kind of thing I sometimes think of going to sleep. This is my funeral. There I am being carried aloft by friends, students, colleagues, and you know what they all have in common? They're all sorry. So I imagine this scene from a disembodied vantage point. I'm there watching them all saying, we wish we'd treated him right. We should have appreciated him while he was here. Boy, I'd do anything to have him back for just a moment. There they all are. But where am I in all this? Well, I'm not really bodied anymore, right? I mean, there is the husk there that is all these pigs have and serve them right. So I can imagine coming apart from my body. I can imagine having the out-of-body experience where I'm looking down, but that just shows that I can conceive of myself independently of my body. I mean, the way Descartes puts it is, the material world could be an entirely an illusion. It could be that all of your life, all you've been getting are hallucinations. Some people do spend a lot of their lives having hallucinations. It could be that that's all you've ever got. So you wouldn't have any knowledge of a body at all.  So your knowledge of your own mental states can't be the same thing as your knowledge of material bodies. Or to put it around the other way, people sometimes suppose that you could have a body just, somebody could have a body just like yours without being conscious. I mean, this is the popular idea of a zombie. As you can see, zombies look just like you. And yet the thing is, although a zombie can move and act just like you, is not conscious. That's the scary thing about zombies, yeah? So actually, this is a kind of unflattering portrait. I mean, really, the zombie could look just like you physically. The zombie could be molecule for molecule identical to you physically, but still not be conscious. So here's how Descartes puts it. I might consider the body of a man as a kind of machine equipped with and made up of bones, nerves, muscles, veins, blood, and skin in such a way that even if there were no mind in it, it would still perform all the same movements as it does now in those cases where movement is not under control of the will or consequently of the mind. So you can conceive of mind and body independently of one another. So if you think of how you know of your own mind, you know about your own mind by introspection, by thinking about what you get in meditation or what you get by an imaginative understanding of other people, you can find out about your own mind in ways that they don't have anything to do with your knowledge of your brain. You could have a profound knowledge of your own mind without knowing that you have a brain at all, right? I mean, presumably people have, for centuries, managed that where they didn't know that the brain was particularly relevant to the mind.   I mean, we study bees without knowing whether bees are conscious. Are bees conscious? Class? Yeah. Right, well, that's actually my hunch too, but I had a colleague, zoologist friend who actually did work on bees full time. That was his job. And he was very clear that bees were not conscious.  Right? How can something that small be conscious? Aha! The key thing is, the key thing is when you're studying, yeah, uh-huh, well, yeah, there may be something to that. Yes, so it shouldn't matter. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, I thought there was a question back there. Yeah. You can't just say I refute and leave it at that. I hear my refute you. Yeah. I hear my refute you too. That's really the key thing I want, yeah. If you take another example, the sea slug, the sea slug brain is now completely understood. I mean, it's an astonishing thing that all the connections between the neurons and the sea slug brain have been mapped. There is a completely comprehensive understanding of the sea slug brain. Are sea slugs conscious? I mean, nobody knows, right? How do you figure it? How do you really get a definitive test on that one? So Martians could do that to us. Martians could come and study us and say, look at these little charts. It's absolutely marvelous. They make these cars, they run about the planet in these little cars. They have all these buildings. Look at what they get up to. We have mapped their brains. We know such a lot about their brains. Let me show you over here. We have mapped our brain and we know the computationally exactly what their brains do. But Martians split into two camps. Some of them say, well, I think they are conscious. Others say, no, they're so small and they're so kind of fleshy. Nothing that kind of fleshy and small could possibly be conscious. It doesn't really make sense. It doesn't really matter. They could understand the brain completely. So you could have a comprehensive understanding of the brain without even knowing whether a mind was there. You could have a comprehensive understanding of the mind without having grasped that there is a brain or that a brain's even relevant. So brain and mind just must be distinct. They've got to be two different things. That's Descartes' second argument for saying that the mind can't be physical. Fair enough? How do we know that we're conscious? Yes, the cats know that they're conscious. We're taking it as a working assumption that cats are conscious, right? Yeah. But do they know they're conscious? Yeah. They're part of stuff, yeah. I don't know. It seems to me that knowing that you're conscious is a really different thing to being conscious. Knowing that you're conscious requires you have some concept of consciousness. You can think about consciousness.  I guess my impulse would be to think that cats are conscious, all right, but they can't think about that stuff. You know, they can't be connoisseurs of their own conscious states, yeah? Should we? Should we? Can't. Don't we? You can say, I love the way that makes me feel, right? You think about your own conscious states the whole time. If you like pain, for example, you might say, oh, this pain is exquisite, yeah? Whereas a cat can't do that. I mean, I'm not boasting here, but, yeah? Yeah. Okay, one, two. I think they're the way that psychologists study the brain. They're always thinking about how does this connect to the conscious mind. But I don't know that it actually makes much difference to the way the science is done, because when you think about the way people study the honeybees or the way people study sea slugs, they really don't spend a lot of time torturing over whether these things are conscious. I mean, if they did, it might be harder to do the experiments, yeah? But they really don't think about that. And the thing is that the same methodology that's used for studying relatively simple animals is the same methodology that scientists use in studying the human brain. It's not as if when you get to the human brain, oh, everything amps up and everything changes so far as a physiological study goes. The physiological study looks exactly the same. I mean, how could it be different? You're just looking at yourselves and how they're connected and the chemistry and so on. Yeah, yeah? Yeah, yeah. What yours is what the difference is? Yeah, that's fair enough. Well, this goes back to something someone said last time about thinking in sensation. I mean, thinking is something that you very often do in language, right? So thinking is something kind of fancy. Like just having a sensation, any kind of animal can do that. You stick a pin in a snail. It's gonna feel a sensation, presumably, I think. But does that mean that the snail is thinking? Doing that kind of thing that we do with language? Just having the sensation is one thing. Just curling up into a ball because of that pin going in. That's one thing, but thinking about it, that's what I think is different. It would have to be more than reactionary. It would have to be something that was disconnected from the here and now, so you could reflect on the event and reflect on what made it happen, what was gonna make it happen again, how to avoid it in the future and so on. It might involve planning. So if you think of thinking as being, in the first instance, something verbal, you see what it means, something you do with language, then sensation doesn't require language. Okay, things are hotting up and I really want to hear what people say, but I will try to be brief or one, two, three, and then there's something else up here, okay, yeah. Thank you, yeah, yeah. The mirror tests would, so if something can recognize itself in a mirror, then it's self aware, yeah. So they actually did this a little while ago at my son's daycare, they did the same test they do with animals, they put red dots in everybody's forehead and then let them see themselves in the mirror to see if they rubbed them off and apparently the, I'm sorry to say the animals are a great deal better than the UC two-year-olds, but there you go. Sorry, but that's what you mean by a test for self-awareness. Yes. Okay, intelligent use of a mirror. That's what we're talking about is, yeah, fair enough, yes. Okay, so that's different to self-awareness, to self-consciousness. I think that is self-awareness. Right. Oh, that's a very interesting distinction, yeah, that's very good, okay, okay. So intelligent use of a mirror just shows only that you have the conception of yourself as having a body, yeah. But self-consciousness would require what I was talking about a moment ago, knowing that you have experiences and so on. Yes, okay, I just buy that completely, that's a very good point, yeah. Next, yeah. We are assuming that humans are questionless, yeah. How did humans think before language? Yeah, the thing I say about language is, there's a complex question about the relation between thought and language, yeah. You might think that thinking comes first and makes language possible. That's kind of what your question suggests, yeah. I don't want to disagree with that really. Even if thinking comes first and makes language possible, it's still what we're doing in using language. Using language is an intelligent activity. It involves thought, yeah. That's really all I meant. I'm just to get straight into the distinction between thinking and sensation. Do you see what I mean? Yeah, I don't understand how I got the question. That's right. Yeah. I think that's right. I think, yeah, so having backed off a little bit, let me say that for most kinds of thinking, language, it just seems perfectly obvious that language is needed. And if you think about, can a dog know that its master will be home three weeks from today? Can a dog think the earth existed for a long time before I did?  You know pretty well they're not thinking that, right? They're not thinking about dinosaurs or something. They're not thinking about, am I really a descendant of a dinosaur? No, that can't be right. You see what I mean? So many thoughts are just not available to you if you don't have language. Next? Yes. That's right. I was thinking of the snail sensation as the same thing as consciousness, yeah. Yes. Would they feel the sensation at all? That's what I was thinking, they don't feel the sensation. Yeah. Okay. We will come back to this. I don't mean to ride over things here. These are all complex questions that you guys are raising. So I'm trying to say something about them, but I don't want to suggest that's the end of the story in any of these things. Yeah. We are going to come back to the B. I'm going to prolong it. We shouldn't move on, but let's say it quickly and I won't say anything. Infants. Yeah, well, with very young children, I guess the general trajectory of so much work has been that initially people thought that not much was going on with children until they were three or four or five, yeah. But there's been such a flood of work in the last few decades showing what complex things infants are capable of. That you'd have to be pretty tough-minded to say that even newborn infants aren't capable of thought. Yeah, I don't want either to deny that. Yeah, I mean, the point is they don't have language. Yeah. When you say he puts them at the same level, I mean, so far as respect and so on go. Yeah, I don't quite agree with that, actually, if it's the infant or the starving lion. I know what I go for, if you see what I mean. I know whose side I'm on. And that may be speciesists, but what the hell, yeah. So, but just purely cognitively, infants are pretty unusual. Yeah, that's not to say that animals, there isn't a lot of intelligence in some animals. Yeah, yeah. Yes. We're really talking about how to think of the mind or the soul, yeah. That there is some something, your knowledge of your own mental states, but actually at the end today, in this section, your knowledge of your own existence, what I want to do is push a bit further on that idea of knowledge of a soul or mind. Yes, so we'll look at that a bit more today. That's something Descartes completely for granted, but it's really a baffling idea once you start to brood on it. Okay, okay. So let's look at these three arguments. We looked at this one last week, we just looked at that one. So let's look at this one about divisibility. I just want to say something quite brief about this because it's hard to get what he's after here and we're going to spend more time on this in a couple of weeks. Matter is divisible, but the self is indivisible. Descartes says, body is by its very nature always divisible. You take a knife, you can always cut a bit of mustard in half, you can always cut it in half again. The mind is utterly indivisible. Another way of putting it is, here's another way he puts it, when I consider the mind, that is to say myself, in as much as I am only a thinking thing, I cannot distinguish in myself any parts, but apprehend myself to be clearly one and entire. The body has limbs, the physical body has organs, the body has all these constituents that are assembled and all these constituents can exist on their own, but the mind doesn't seem to have parts in that way. If you think of, suppose you have any two experiences, you have an experience of intense intellectual stimulation and at the same time, you feel that something has just run over your foot, then you are having these two experiences, but they themselves seem to be part of some broader thing. What it's like to have your current mental life, they're part of some more global conscious state that you're having right now. So one way you could think of it is, what you've got right now is really just one big experience. Anything, any other experience, any descriptions you have of particular experiences like a pain or a sensation are just aspects of that single experience you're having right now. And the mental life has a kind of seamlessness about it in the way that everything is connected to everything else. And the physical stuff, the body is just not like that. Another way to put it is in terms of what you're aware of, that's to say, if you're aware of one thing over here and aware of another thing over there, if you're aware of the projector there and you're aware of the board there, then you're aware of both of those things. That's to say, you can compare them. You can say, are they close together? Is one bigger than the other? Did one last longer than the other? Or these two things that you're aware of at the same time, they might be forming a pattern. There's a single perspective from which you're getting everything right now. You are kind of like the vanishing point of that perspective from which you're getting everything right now. And you can be aware of all these things as related to each other or forming a pattern. If you said, well, with one part of my mind, I'm aware of A, with another part of my mind, I'm aware of B, but I can't compare A and B because it's different bits of my mind that are aware of the two of them. I can't put these two things together and say, is one bigger than the other? Is one lasting longer than the other? Are they close? Because it's just different bits of my mind that are in question here. That makes no sense. How could that be? You see what I mean? If you're aware of this thing here and that thing there, how could you be in a position to say, but I don't know whether they're close or I can make sense of the question whether they're close? Of course you can because there's a single act of consciousness in which you're encompassing both of them. But with the brain, it makes perfect sense to say, with one bit of my brain, I'm responding to A, with another bit of my brain, I'm responding to B, but those two bits of brain aren't connected to each other so I can't compare A and B because they're different bits of brain that are in question. That makes perfect sense. I mean, that happens. Your brain could be responding to two different things without putting them together. Whereas your mind doesn't have components like that, your mind doesn't have different channels in that sense of channels that are independent of one another. Your mind just packs everything together into what the world is like from a single perspective. So the mind has a kind of unity that you can't explain in biological terms. That's what Descartes thinking, yep. Couldn't the aid in the superego be considered as parts of the mind? That is a very good example. That is the kind of splitting of the mind that Descartes is saying is impossible. Yep, when you say I've got an aid in the superego, was that your example, aid in superego, when you say? These are just operating, these are just playing different games. Yeah, the aid in the superego. The thing is, I think what Descartes has to say back here is if you really take this talk very seriously about the aid in the superego, what you're talking about here are really two different individuals that are communicating or they are conflicting or they may just be ignoring one another and going about their business separately. But the more seriously you take this talk about the aid in the superego, the more it looks like you have two different individuals here just because they are two different perspectives from which the world is being viewed. You see what I mean? The really difficult thing with understanding what's going on with the talk about the aid in the superego is to understand in what sense they are parts of a single mind. Another way to think of it is, suppose I'm trying to imagine what life is like for you.  And the analyst says, well, here's what he's doing and here's what a superego is doing. But what I really want to get is, what's it like in your shoes? How does the world seem to you? How does that feel to be like that? Well, I don't want to be in a position where I can say, well, I can get what a superego is thinking. That's one way of imagining what the world is like in his shoes. I can get what his aid is thinking. That's another way of imagining what the world is like in his shoes. But have I put that together? I have no idea. You see what I mean? Whereas if you say, well, I want to get his total perspective in the world, that's the thing when it seems like there's got to be some kind of unity. So I think Descartes has to play back there. That basic question about the aid and the superego, are we really to think of them as separate individuals or are this really, in some sense, just one mind here? In that case, how can you make sense of this? Talk about conflict or not connecting? Yes. Isn't that equally divisible? Yeah, you could talk about the Apple Corporation as a structure and saying it is all these bits. There's a search and design and there's marketing and so on. But nonetheless, there's a whole thing here too. Yeah, that's the idea. I think the key point here is that the kind of unity, it's just that I was about to, I'm just working myself back to the thing that says in the slide there, that when you're explaining what the unity of the mind comes to, the unity of a corporation is not the same thing as the unity of a collection of bits. If you want to understand the organization of a corporation, you can't really understand that in terms, say, of atomic physics or in terms of just how individual people are going about their business. You need to have some global picture of how the whole organism works and explain how these things are plugging into it. Whereas with the brain, you really can bust it down atomically and look at it cell by cell and then look at how the cells are all wired together. The mind doesn't seem to have that kind of atomic structure where you can look at all the bits and pieces individually and then say, and now here's how you make a mind. You stack together all these sensations and thoughts and feelings and motivations. Whereas you can do that with a brain. You can say you take the cells and you stick them together this way. Yeah, so a mind can be, the brain can be bust down into its atomic ingredients. Whereas the mind doesn't really make sense to do that. There are these different aspects to it, but that's not the same thing as to say, you can take those aspects and then put them together and that's how you make a mind. Something like that, I think, is what Descartes is thinking. Yeah, yep, aha, that really is. You're talking about that broadly, that transversely running broadband of fibers known as the corpus callosum. Yeah, that we're actually going to spend an entire session on in just a couple of weeks. So I strongly agree with the importance of that. You guys are just going a bit too fast. Could you all just slow down a bit please? No, that's great. That's exactly a case as we'll come to where you've got a patient, it seems to me an example where you've got a mind that's been fragmented. There's some sense in which you're getting a shattering of the mind here. Yeah, so that really is a case in which you've got a mind that seems to have lost some kind of unity. If you haven't come across this before, this will be a bit cryptic, but we'll actually spend a lot of time on this. If you want to read ahead on this, you might look at the article by Nagel called Brain, Bisexuality and the Unity of Consciousness, which if only you'd come to this class a couple of years ago, you could have written the article, but there you go. That is actually about the implications of these procedures for what Descartes is saying. Yeah. Yes. Well, the way you described it, that's two different parts of the mind. Yeah. If you're remembering your teacher from a couple of years ago, and you're thinking, boy, he was much better than Campbell, that's a purely mental exercise, right? You're putting those together as, I mean, the whole point is you can't do the comparison. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, yes, yes, going on. People use memory in a lot of different ways. I mean, if you lift a heavy weight, yeah, it can sometimes be a little bit easier to lift another heavy weight a moment later. Your muscle kind of got used to that heavy weight. And people say, well, your muscle is remembering what it just did. Yeah. That's not memory. That's a perfectly good sense of memory. Yeah. Or your phone remembers who you rang last. I mean, you just do ring last number, right? There is a broad sense of memory in which you could perfectly well be something physical. But usually when we're talking about memory in this class anyway, or I think in ordinary life when we're talking about memory, usually we're talking about something mental. When you talk about looking at the face of someone you know well in an awesome evening and remembering those summers long ago, yeah. That's mental, yeah. Yeah, okay. Memory is a kind of elastic term. Okay, so that's Descartes' second two arguments. I want to go back now and look again at the argument we were working through last time, this thing about knowledge of your own existence. Descartes says, that proposition, I am, I exist. That's necessarily true whenever it's put forward by me or conceived by my mind. Every time you think that, you've got to be right when you think you exist. So the certainty with which you know of your own existence is greater than the certainty with which you could know of the existence of any physical thing. Even if an evil demon is manipulating all your experiences, manipulating all your thoughts, if I'm supposing that, okay, bye-bye, if I'm supposing that there's some supremely powerful and if it's permissible to say malicious deceiver who's deliberately trying to trick me in every way he can, what can I say about what characteristics I have? Can I say I have even the most insignificant of characteristics that belong to body? Well, no, of course you can't, right? That was a main point last time. If you're in that situation, you think maybe this is all a dream, maybe this is all hallucinations, then you don't know of any of your physical characteristics. And Descartes says at last I've discovered it, thought that alone is inseparable from me. So the thing that you know exists is something thinking. So let's just pause in the structure here. Here's what's going on. Descartes does some thinking. It might be right, it might be wrong, but he's doing some thinking. And then he moves from that to I am thinking. And then he moves from that to so I exist. This is Descartes' Kajito. This is supposed to be the foundation of all philosophy according to Descartes. That's where you start. You get a particular conscious thinking.  Please don't anticipate everything I'm about to say, but yes, all right. Yes, yes, I wouldn't have thought so. I mean, I would agree that you can sleep without dreaming or thinking. In fact, some of us can just look out the window and not think at all, right? It's a gift, there's just nothing going on. Oh, I'm sorry to say, but the thing about that case is that there is not that you're reflecting I am thinking and getting it wrong. The minute you snap to and say I'm thinking, well, you must be right, that's his idea. In your case where you're having a dreamless sleep, you're not going through this rigmarole, yeah? So it's not as if you're going through this rigmarole and getting it wrong.  That's what he's saying. Yes? Yeah, that's a really excellent question. Thought is inseparable from me, yeah? So dreamless sleep should be impossible. Yeah, that's your point, yeah? Yeah, I guess that, yeah. Yeah, I actually think that's pretty devastating. I mean, there are things you can say to that. You can say, well, the self is something that's capable of thinking, but isn't actually doing it right now. That's all that's going on. But really, what is it then if it's not thinking? When all we know about this hectoplasm is that it has this capacity for thought? You see what I mean? I think that's a really powerful remark. Austin Jackson, do you want to comment on that? I mean, actually, my inquireration is to say take out just has to fold. I think that's a very powerful remark. But maybe I'm missing something. Yeah, okay, one, two, three, four, five. Okay, right, okay, I'll try to be quick, yeah. Lucid dreaming, yeah. Yeah, that one, isn't that one a bit more like the, well, there's an easy reply to this and then there's a bit where it gets harder, yeah? There's a bit where you say, well, in lucid dreaming, I guess you're thinking, yeah? So this bit, the thinking is caught, but who is it that's doing the thinking is a harder question because it depends how lucid your dream is. I mean, I don't know much about this, but my impression is that in lucid dreaming, there's a lot of range of possibilities. But one possibility is you don't know who you are anymore except that you're, I don't know, the monkey with the umbrella or whatever it might be in this particular case. You see what I mean? So that might attack the bit. I don't know who this is, yeah, but you still know about the thinking. Is that your idea? Yes. I think Descartes' line in this, and this might be a mistake, but Descartes' line in this is that you can't have fake thoughts. If it seems to you like you're having a whole bunch of thoughts in your lucid dream, then you are thinking. You can't be wrong about whether you're thinking. I mean, just seeming to you that you're having a whole bunch of thoughts, that itself is a kind of thinking. That's the picture, so that there can't be an error there. Okay, yeah, I can't remember what the other was, but I think you were next, yeah. Yes, that's right.  I mean, I don't know what there is.  Well, I don't know. I don't mean to be too autobiographical here, but that happens and you just take it for granted, it was the same thing the whole way through, yeah. You don't get away with saying, but that wasn't the real me or something. Yeah, that wasn't me. But that's what happens, but the question is, and they can't really make any sense of it when you're saying that thinking isn't separable from me. If thinking isn't separable from me, then how can I have continued through a gap in my existence? You see what I mean? Something else, right. But that's the thing, if you say it's something else that's steering, not the thinking, we don't have any idea yet what that is, and how could you have certain knowledge of the existence of that thing? I'm sorry, the person, you want to come in on this, yeah. It's not still thinking if you're aware of it. It is still thinking. That's right. Okay, yeah, the awareness itself is thinking. No argument about that. I think the point that these guys are making, going back to, yeah, your initial point, was what you're aware of is there's something existing without thinking? You see what I mean? And how can that be? How could there have been something there that was you but wasn't thinking if thought isn't separable from me? Yeah, that's a challenge. Okay, well, yeah. I mean, these questions are all extremely important questions. It's not like, this is random stuff, I'm just dismissing. These are all comments that are as important as anything I'm saying, yeah. That's right. I mean, that's how we take it, that if I just look out the window and everything goes blank for a bit, then you don't say, well, I cease to exist, then, yeah. I mean, yeah. Sorry, carry on. Yeah, look, let me give an example here. Suppose you say that, okay, Descartes is saying thought is inseparable from the self, right? That's what Descartes is saying. And the reason he says this is when you've got this argument, I get from the fact of my thinking to my certainty that I exist. Well, how could that be if there was any more to you than just thinking? You see what I mean? There can't be any more to you than just thinking. And there can't even be a physical body. So an analogy might be, suppose you take the notion of a beam of light. I hope I can, okay, I hope I don't just shut all the power down or something. Okay, a beam of light, okay. Now, this is a simple demonstration. Here is a beam of light, right? Coming from, let's say, that panel there. You got a beam of light. Now, a beam of light, what a beam of light does is it shines, right? Yes? So just as the self thinks a beam of light shines, okay? Now here is a gap in the beam of light, okay? A period which is not shining. And now there you go. Now it's shiny again. So here is the puzzle. Was the beam of light there for that period in which there wasn't any shining? No, of course not. I mean, is there a beam of, is there a beam of light there now, class? No, right. Why not? Because there isn't any shining, right? So if Descartes is saying, think of thinking as the shining of the self, if you see what I mean. And there is no more to the self than shining. Then how can the self continue through a gap when there's no shining or rather no thinking? You see what I mean? How could that be? That is the puzzle. I've lost track of who's in line. Okay. Okay, carry on, yeah. Yeah, your thoughts might be going on anyhow, yeah. That would be another reply Descartes might make. I really was thinking even though it didn't seem like it, yeah. Yes, you could be thinking without realizing that you're thinking, yeah. That could happen.   You see what I mean? You can get absorbed in a train of thought but not realize that you're, that's what you mean about reading. It's not that when you're reading your thinking, oh my God, I can't believe I'm finally reading War and Peace. You see what I mean? You can do that. You can just sit there thinking, oh my God, I'm reading War and Peace finally. But usually you don't do that. You just read the stuff and you don't think about it. Is that your point? Yes. Well, the question is what is this thing that exists? Is not something physical? Yeah, that's what he thinks is established. So if it's not, if it was something physical and you can make perfect sense of the idea that the biological brain and body continue through a gap in the thinking. But if all you've got on this thing is that it's thinks, then what is there to continue in existence? It's kind of like the beam of light. I mean, there's no more to a beam of light than the shining. If there's no more to the self than the thinking, how could the self continue? That's the challenge. But I agree with both those points, though, that Descartes might say, no, there really was thinking going on. You just didn't realize it. That's a good point in a movie might make. Yeah. Yes. The same thing goes for plants. It's like, isn't a plant existing that doesn't think it's like, well, you're not a plant, so it doesn't really matter.  Right, is that what Descartes's getting at? Um, he's got to reject the plant an example. Yeah, because the plant is just a physical thing. The thing about the metrics seems to be much more serious because, I mean, what Descartes is pushing here is really an early version of the metrics. Yeah, I mean, that's what it is.  The Descartes, I think I understand. The metrics, I have never really grasped. But, um, I, it's something like that. Like, if you take away the genius and put in some chip or something, and something like that is what's going on in the metrics, yeah. And actually, um, there is the same question. If you're really in that scenario, then what kind of knowledge can you have if you're on existence? I actually want to press that a bit further. Let me try pressing this a bit further and then come back in just a couple of minutes. Yeah, if I've got or haven't got it, what you're saying. So here's Descartes' line of thought. You get a particular conscious thinking. You move from that to I am thinking, and you move from that to I exist. This is really worth pausing over, because it really matters this line of thought for how you think of the self. If this line of thought is okay, then the self really does seem to be something non-physical. How could you have certain knowledge of its existence if you're in a matrix scenario and it doesn't exist, and it's not physical? Well, it's got to be something non-physical. That's what it seems like. If you know of your own existence simply on the basis of knowledge of your thoughts, then there can't really be anything more to you than your thoughts, right? That's all that we've got here. The trouble is, there's a basic point here that Hume said this long ago, that you can check this out now. Look inside your own mind right now. Don't concentrate in your surroundings for just a second. Just cut sideways, look inside your own mind, and see what's there. What is there in your own mind right now? Actually, psychologists do do experiments in this world. You're given a tape recorder to carry with you, and a random point during the day, a buzzer goes off saying, just note what you're thinking about right now, where you are and what you're thinking about right now, and then the researchers put together what they call the Thought Activity Correlation. So if you're doing something dangerous, you're going to be thinking about exactly what you're doing. You see what I mean? Whereas if you're just going for a walk, then you're not going to be thinking about the walk the whole time. You're going to be thinking about your plans for later in the week. So you just record the Thought Activity Correlation. The Thought Activity Correlation is very, very low in lectures. I'm sorry to say that when people get that random buzz and say what they're thinking, it's usually got not much to do with a lecture. But anyway, be that as it may. Focus right now on what's in your mind. Hume said, when you look inside your mind, do you find the self? Do you find the soul? Hume says, no. When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. So you might be brooding about your enemies or friends or whatever it is. But you never get anything but some particular thought, some particular perception, some particular sensation. What you never get when you look inside your own mind is something you'd call the self. If when you looked inside your own mind, you really got the self, that would have to be something that was always there, something that was invariably the same through the whole course of your lives. Because that's what the self is, right? I mean, yourself is something that's kind of always around. So when you looked inside your own mind, it would be like having tinnitus or something. You just got this, this can sing, oh, that's me, right? There you are. You could look inside your own mind. Hi. That's yourself. And there it is again. And Hume's point is, when you think about what that is actually saying, that's absurd. Nothing like that happens. What's really going on is, when you look inside your mind, all you ever encounter are particular thoughts. And when you say I, when you talk about the self, there is nothing that you get any knowledge of by just looking inside your own mind. Talk about me, the thing that's having the thoughts. Talk about this self. It's really like a theoretical postulate. It's as if you're talking about something you've discovered in the laboratory and you say, well, something must be causing that. Let's call that magnetism or let's call that an electron. You postulate something.  You see all those thoughts. You encounter all those sensations and you say something is having those thoughts. Something is having those sensations. I'm going to give it a name. I'll call it me. That's me that's having all those thoughts. You see what I mean? You just postulated this thing. Just as if you've got a series of murders, say, you might postulate some one person committed all those murders. You never actually encountered that person, but you just postulate a single hand is at work in all these killings. Similarly, when you get all your thoughts, you say a single thing is having all those thoughts. I bet that's me. I bet that's me again. Yeah, yeah. Well, when you figure it out, come back, yeah? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah, that really matters. That thing about some thoughts you want to say, that's not really me that was thinking that. Yeah, that was a demon. That was my demons. Yeah, right. They were making me think that. Yeah, I think that's a very important notion, that notion of the thoughts I endorse, the thoughts that are the authentic me, something like that. It can also be a dodge. If I spend most of my life thinking about that cat, and then whenever I am unmasked, I say, but that's not the authentic me. That can be pretty implausible, or it can be a dodge to do that. But seriously, it really matters which of your thinking you really get behind, and you say, I completely go along with that, that's right. But the thing is, there seems to be a more basic notion of what's running through your mind. What's something that happens is your mind rather than somebody else's. And some of the stuff that runs through your mind, you get behind, and you say that's mine, and some of it you don't. But it's all running through your mind. And that's really what we're talking about here, that kind of more primitive notion of it's running through your mind rather than the mind of someone else in the class, for example. Yeah. Yes, it is constantly changing. I thought, can you do that louder? Yes. Yeah, that connects actually to the last question. There's how the self is presented, something like that, and that can vary a lot. And there are decisions you make as to what I'm going to present as the real me, what is the authentic self. I think that's right. But there's got to be some conception of what it is that makes it the same person, the same self over all this time. I mean, it's good that you emphasize the possibility of difference, but it's one thing to be killed and replaced by another. I mean, it's one thing for me to go through a lot of changes and then come back next week and barely recognizable. It's a different situation if someone else replaces me. You see what I mean? And you've got to be able to say, what's the difference there? What is making it the same thing all the way through? Yeah, that's something we wouldn't spend a lot of time on, actually. That is the problem of personal identity. Okay, but come back to that. Okay, last one. Well, there are mental changes too. I mean, I could really go through a revolution. I could convert to some, yeah, I could convert to, I'm sorry, I could convert to something. I could convert to something and that might make very radical changes to my psychology. I no longer like the people I used to like, I no longer like the food I used to like. My psychology might change. Let me carry on a little bit because I think that is the key question. What is the self, what conception do you have of it?  But what is that? You don't have any idea what that is. I mean, it seems to me, your knowledge of your own existence comes from right outside just looking inside your own mind. Your knowledge of your own existence comes from knowing which thing you are as a physical thing, how other people connect to you, for example. I'll skip over the remarks of the Silver Surfer. Well, I will just quote the Silver Surfer. When all is said and done, who is the dreamer and which is the dream? And the insight there that has always struck me is, these two questions are connected. You don't know who the dreamer is until you know which the dream is. You've got to know something about your own existence as a real, concrete object before you can draw any conclusions about who the dreamer is. So you've got, first of all, to know which of your perceptions are real. If you really didn't know about your own existence, then all you could say is, there's some thinking going on. That was a comment Lichtenberg made about Descartes. You don't have that right to say, I exist. If you really think all this is maybe a dream, all you can say is, some thinking is going on. You know, it's as if Descartes' picture is you look inside your own mind, you get the hard crystalline self, the enduring thing that is always there through all these variations in your thoughts. But there is no such self.  One way to think of it is like this. Suppose that what was going on is this. Suppose there is a soul. Well, one way to think of what's going on when you look inside your own mind is, you encounter all these particular thoughts. And then you say, something's having those thoughts. Let's call it me. But of course, you have no guarantee that there is any one thing that is thinking all those thoughts. Each of these thoughts might be being had by something different. It's kind of like the case of a serial killer. You say, look, all these killings happened where you think there is just one person at work. But really, it might be many different people. You don't know that. All you're getting is the killings, if you see what I mean. You're not getting who did it. So if you look inside your own mind and you've got a whole bunch of thoughts, all you're getting is each of those thoughts and you're postulating there's something that's doing that thinking, but it might be something different in each case. There's no reason to think there's an abiding me, a continuous self that is doing all that. I suppose that what was going on was that there was a whole string of souls underlying those thoughts that you have when you look inside your mind.  But suppose that what's underlying it is a string of souls. Each of them might be connected to the next so that they transmit their momentum as are the underlying causes of your thoughts to the next one. But maybe there's thousands of souls there over a period of an hour, say maybe since you came into this room, each soul you have has lasted only a few hundred milliseconds and boom, then it's transmitted all its impulses to the next soul coming up, gone out of existence itself. But there's the same overlay of thoughts that they're generating. Everything would be just the same to you as it is now. All you get when you look inside your own mind is those particular thoughts. So you don't have knowledge of the existence of any one of those souls just from looking inside of your mind. You don't have knowledge of the existence of any soul at all. Another way to put it is to say, suppose that actually your body right now has associated with it a thousand different souls underlying the same set of thoughts. Everything would seem just the same. The hard fact that you encounter when you look inside your own mind, that's the thoughts. The thing that is doing the thinking, you don't encounter that at all when you look inside your own mind. There might be thousands of them. There might be none. It might be just the thoughts. Why not? Why think there's a self there at all underlying the thoughts? So when Descartes says, I'm thinking really, he should just be saying, there's thinking going on. You look inside your mind right now and you say, low, thinking, low, a sensation. That's all you have the right to. You have no idea what that I might be. If you think of yourself as a biological human being, then you know what you're talking about. Then you can say, this is the same biological human being that had these parents, that lived for so long, that has done all this stuff. But when Descartes says, the certainty with which you know of your own existence is greater than the certainty with which you could know of the existence of anything, that just seems to be a mistake. If you suppose that you don't have any knowledge of physical things at all, then you also don't have any knowledge of the self. All that's going on is you're encountering particular thoughts. You don't have any certain knowledge of the existence of any concrete thing.  The self has got to be something biological. OK, here ends the lesson for today. Great questions. Thank you very much. Great discussion.


All right, it is six o'clock and I will call the 10th regular Common Council meeting to order will the clerk Please state the court of the day. Thank you. Mr. Mayer the ability to learn is the most important quality a leader can have Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll all the person Ackley Yes, all the person Decker. Yeah, all the person Feldy All the person Felicky Paneski all the person Heidemann all the person Mitchell excused all the person Pirella excused all the person Salazar all the person Rust here all their person Raimi. Yeah, there are eight present Thank you. If you're able will you please stand for the Pledge of Legions I? pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all All right next is approval of the minutes all their Feldy Thank You mayor I move to approve Second there's been a motion second for the minutes any discussion Seeing none all those in favor approving the minutes, please state aye. Aye any objection minutes are approved Even for public forum no one this evening Next we'll go into mayoral appointments city attorney Thank you first The following appointments for your confirmation Kim Miller to be considered for appointment to the city plan commission and Kelsey Byrd to be considered for appointment to the city's Sustainable Task Force and those who will lay over Next is confirmation of mayoral appointments city attorney pursuant to section 2-937 of the Shapoigan municipal code relating to the position of the director of human resources and labor relations We being the mayor and the city administrator hereby recommend that Tony Muse be appointed as the director of human resources and labor relations for the city of Shapoigan effective August 29th 2022 Alder Feldy, I move to confirm Second there's been a motion second any discussion on this item Seeing none. This is a roll call vote. Please refer to your meeting code All the person Hyde man rust Feldy I thank you all the person flicky paneski. I'm sorry I thank you eight eyes. All right. That's approved Next item number seven city attorney Next item is Submitting the following appointment for your confirmation Alder Joe Hyde man to be considered for appointment to the Maywood Environmental Park advisory board. Thank you older Feldy. I move to confirm Second motion second any discussion seeing none. This is a roll call vote as well women All the person rust all the person Feldy I Eight eyes. All right, that's approved Next we have a presentation on the five point three million dollars swing bridge grant funded funding Which are director of planning and development Chad Palschek and public works director David Bebel will kick off Thank you So hang tight Thank you. So today we're going Dave and I are going to take team of presentation about this Cheboygan River pedestrian Swing bridge that broke the news late last week about the city receiving a grant for five point three million So we'll get into a little bit more details on the project but in a high level. We're going to run through a couple slides This was originally proposed back. I think in 2007 It's been in a number of years of planning documents And then kind of shelved if you will because there wasn't enough a lot of funding opportunities available until some recent Biden infrastructure grant funding So the location for this bridge would be Connecting the south pier to the riverfront district. So this we would be Connected in near the Parker Johns on the end of Virginia Avenue where Virginia Avenue terminates into The Cheboygan River and then goes across to the south pier district Which was originally planned to have a bridge when that was designed back in the early 2000 era So the infrastructure and the kind of promenade and stuff at the south pier district is a is already in place So this has been a part of the city's planning efforts for a number of years the image on the left shows the south pier design guidelines plan from 2003 that had a Proposed connector across the river at that location and then the harbour Sender master plan Phase 3 which was adopted in 2007 also showed that as Well connecting the two sides of the river. So just to step back and give you a little bit of Flavor for what was down there You'll some of you may recall this and seen this in the past, but these are old historic photographs of south pier before it was south pier and when it was coal yards and Crude oil tanks and all of that kind of stuff. So this is a picture from about probably 1960s or so Before it was developed. This is a more recent one But you can see that it had its industrial use for a long time in the city saw a vision and move forward this is Recently and then as early as a couple years ago with the housing development. So the Location that's proposed is the narrowest part of the river kind of in the middle of this image. So this is showing what that Promenade on south pier at the top image looks like where the bridge would go and then the image on this bottom kind of shows the From the river the area where it would connect on both sides So why this location? This is the narrowest part of the river at 150 feet The as I stated prior the improvements to south pier have been planned for this addition Talked about it's been talked about extensively over the years or just wasn't a funding source to fund it net there's navigation channel limitations as being a US Army Corps of Engineers Federal navigation channel that restricts some of the Opportunities that might be out there to connect the two sides of the river of the clearance envelope And then this has some access points to the A Street Bridge for operation So this is just an image showing the bridge This isn't the final design. This is a concept plan, but the process will ultimately come out with some kind of Final design it's been 12 years since this was originally proposed. So there's probably some new innovations and technologies That can come into place But the bridge will primarily stay open on a Most of the time it'll be open for boat traffic because that's one of the hindrances that the Charter fishermen have shown over the years is that they don't want to wait for the bridge to open So the bridge would just have scheduled times to close 15 minutes on the hour or you know different Dedicated time frames but on on a given day it would be open more than it would be closed It'd be just the opposite of what you think a bridge of what function most people would think the bridge would be closed and then open for boat traffic, but the boat traffic is the You know is is pretty aggressive and needs to be kept that way, especially with the federal navigation channel So this is just another image showing what that bridge would look like in the open position and The you know the connected connection. So I just want to we those of you that have been involved we've worked on different connection issues through a number of planning efforts with the Harbor Center Business Improvement District, and that's where the the route 42 the Trolley for the shoreland Mitchell came into place to try to connect the two sides of the river But we still hear over and over connection issues of people having to go through the a street rotary the busiest rotary intersection in the city to get up to the downtown from the south pier so With the huge investment on the south pier You know it makes sense to try to connect these two sides of the river and especially with The amount of people that are coming in on a yearly basis to the tune of 70 to 80,000 people through the resort That are on south pier So David's gonna talk a little bit about the grant and some of the requirements and why this project was chosen and where we go from here Thanks Chad. That was a nice recap of Kind of the history of south pier and and how we we arrived at this And it's pretty interesting if you look at some of those old photos back from the 60s and 70s in terms of what that land was And it's use and what it is today. It's pretty transforming So let's I let's talk about the grant it in and of itself. It's very specific and that's why This project was chosen is because there's specific criteria We you know, we hear well, let's put the money towards roads. Well, that's not it That's not an eligibility criteria of the grant So when you go for federal grants, you look at the criteria in and of itself and then you look for projects such as This opportunity for the bridge and that's partly why the bridge hasn't been proposed or built is because when we look at our capital improvements There's other priorities in terms of our existing infrastructure and needs that take precedent over it But when we have an opportunity for a grant to get federal funding That's going to pay for a large large portion of the project now the project becomes feasible So like I said, the grant is very detailed And now that we've been awarded the grant it means it's going to start a process and the process is going to take several years There's again the it's a concept at this point. So we actually need to then work with the grant In the dot to actually bring on a designer Look at the design. What makes the most sense is a swing bridge The best option is a lift bridge in this location Is there an opportunity to shift it slightly to get it a little bit higher even so that bolts may able to Transport underneath it without needing to be raised as much So there's opportunities to have that type of discussion. There's going to be a lot of public input through this process And so again that that's just the beginning of it of the design So as Chad mentioned it came eligible through the Through the biden infrastructure process. So what were some of the requirements? Safety is a huge component of the grant eligibility and we talk about Pedestrians and bicyclists that primarily are going to be using this facility right now They're all being sent to the roundabout intersection at 8th and indiana as well as the history bridge The history bridge has Over 12,000 vehicles a day as well as the intersection So it's very congested and very difficult to navigate if you're a pedestrian or for you're in a bicycle Again environmental sustainability environmental and sustainability is a big focus of the new infrastructure bill Reducing greenhouse gases. So how can we do that? Well, that's one way is by Reducing trips if you're on self-peer or if you're on the riverfront and you want to go to the other side today It's either a well over a mile walk and about almost 20 minute walk Or you hop in your car and you take take take the drive around So again, we are in an attainment zone. What does that mean? Our air quality in shiboyan county is not meeting the federal air quality standards So being in an attainment zone Put us in a higher score for that for this project because we're going to reduce emissions Quality of life again helping with the quality of life is promoting walkability and pedestrian bicycle friendly options It increases your walking score again reducing the emissions Promoting energy efficiency Another aspect is the economy Look at the economic development that has occurred on the self-peer district from the beginning from 2003 to today It's trans the slides themselves show the transformation in the millions of dollars of economic Input and activity and development on that on that This is only going to further spur economic development and competitiveness between the two sides allowing easier access for visitors and residents to enjoy that that that area Another aspect is state of good repair just means Continue to do the good things in terms of maintenance that you're doing in your community and shiboyan scores high in that There's partnerships in collaboration. We've had partnerships with the bid And and and Chad's area in terms of downtown development and in the self-peer district The other aspect was innovation A swing bridge for pedestrian. They're not there's there's very few In the country that actually have movable Pedestrian only spans most of them are for traffic or for for roads And so the the feds at the that were scoring this felt. Hey, this is innovative This is this is good. We you know, this is an area where we want to prove that The the taxpayer dollars in infrastructure are going to be used wisely and this is an opportunity to to demonstrate that type of innovation They looked at the cost benefit the total cost benefit was positive on this Looking at around 40 million dollars of economic development over over the lifespan And it serves a specific population Shiboyan is an area in the downtown area does have its challenges with with um, you know The underserved in in the area. Yes, we have many new apartments But yet a lot of those areas surrounding those are are are in need And the census tracts within those areas qualified as well. So you put this all together and The project scored very high So it was a nationwide competitive grant We're we're actually funded and this is this is unique is we're consider We're considered a rural recipient even though we're an urbanized area But our area is urbanized under 200,000. So we're our urbanized areas between 50 and 200,000 So that qualifies as is in a rural urbanized area Some of the other projects that uh, we're funded there are only four in the state the other three were Pottawatomie community There was a multimodal safety connected project the city of Beloit also again pedestrian bicycle accommodations And as well as the Oneida nation bus garage So we applied for a grant of 5.3 roughly almost 5.4 million and our match will be At the end of all this will be right around 1.3 Now there's all sorts of possible matches of this. It's not just necessarily going to be funded with city funds There's There's this is a federal grant. So there's an opportunity to use state grants as a match in this CMAC, which is congestion mitigation air quality. It's a grant program that Only a few counties in the entire state qualify because of our air quality Sheboygan's one of them and we just recently Are using a CMAC grant to upgrade our traffic signal modernization for better traffic flow to help reduce Emissions as well. So there's an opportunity to use that there's other grants with the dnr and other dot The cdbg as well as this is in a tid and I believe tid 17 so We're going to continue to work on this again. We this is very early This is exciting news that we were a recipient of this reward And there's a lot of things that will be brought before this board and this common council as we progress along this path, but it's again A great step in the beginning of a long long proposed project So As we get more information from the dot. We will keep everyone informed We will need to take a look at the grant Requirements as well as some of the design team and and having public engagement and How how we will manage that as well. This is a dot project So we're we're familiar with doing many dot projects and they Are lengthy in process and that's a good thing because there's a lot of things we want to make sure We have good community input. So again some renderings There's a model down on the first floor as you come into city hall as well And I guess jan and I are here to answer any questions if you have any this evening All right. Thank you director bevel and director palishek Director bevel gets extra points today for an appropriate tie for this discussion. So There's bridges on it if you saw that Anyone on the council have any questions for david or chad dean I just said one quick question So like It would be open most of the or be open most of the time for more traffic now What about would this be utilized in the wintertime also with this? Yes, yes, so be closed in the wintertime The channel has to remain as long as there's there's ice open open water Okay, the bridge is operational So it would probably remain open and it There'll be times there'll be Specific times so again a lot of this will be public engagement and learning with the boarding community as well as the public So there may be times in the evening where the boarding is not so heavy It could be remain closed more often than open Or likewise if we do that the bridges plan to be operated from the a street bridge house And there'll be camera systems. There'll be Dial communication from the bridge tender house to operate the bridge and have communication with With intercoms and so forth as well from that. That's the plan again, there's opportunities where You know the charter boats go out at a certain time and after that then there's not a lot of boarding It could be remain closed it a little bit more open for pedestrians. So there'll be opportunities to to work with that throughout the process, but it's it's not going to be Close all the time and wait for a boat because that section of the river is much more boat traffic in other words Alder ramy Is there a deadline uh to have it done by is the does the grant again, we haven't received the the the The contract yet. So we're waiting at typically there's a three to four year window For planning design and construction Alder fliki paneski. Thank you Um Was was this application The same application that was Put in when 2007 is that when it was or is this a new application? that This is a new application, but it took much of the original data from the original proposal from 2007 and then Used economic figures to update the numbers in terms of looking at cost the cpi index Is gross domestic product to to get today's dollar figure for what it was originally proposed to be built back in 2007 Did we have support from the scedc? For this for this application We did well they they supported after the fact now that it got funded they We didn't get so we didn't have any need for letters of support from partners for the grant application That was my question. Thank you Any additional questions from elders? All right, seeing none. Thank you gentlemen Um Just had some quick mayoral announcements Just wanted to thank those again who attended uh, estling infest yesterday Again, this is our 55 year anniversary With being sister cities with estling in the shambuig and son recently did a wonderful article recognizing The sister city partnership with germany. So go check it out on their website as well too. So That's all I have next we'll move along to the consent agenda Items 11 through 22 alder feldi thank you, mayor I move to receive the receiving file all our o's receive all our c's and adopt all resolutions and ordinances Is there a second second there's been a motion second any discussion? Alder heidelman. Yeah. Thank you, mayor I'm looking at the ordinance I have one question When the task force looked at the Impact of what it was going to have in those areas that they actually involved the property owners In that area in helping make that decision Whether they thought it was if they didn't want to have the dog parks there or that Were the local Residents included in this at all not So I I see superintendent joe cullin is here shorter answer is yes. The city did do the citywide Survey a few months back. I understand about the survey there that that but that what happens if And that information is compiled and probably would be positive and I think it would be but Are the actual property owners that are connected to the beaches and connected to these other bucks were they contacted as to what the effect was for them Joe do you want to add to that? So to answer that no specifically we did not So you wouldn't if if I had a dog run going right past me and I was a property owner I have no seeing it once forever at this time. We have not we do plan on working with each neighborhood association In that area as we develop that plan for each of those parks Okay One other thing tonight you went down at the end of indiana avenue Okay, and there's a red sign that says no pets And there's a green sign right underneath the red sign that says dogs unleash I can pick up after yourself I would you know, I don't know why you would have two signs and if this wasn't adopted yet Why would they be able to have the leash animals on that that corridor? Yeah, I can explain that I think maybe I need to remove the bottom sign the the top one the red one says no pet on beach Okay, and this is right before the the walkway You know So the second one is for the walkway dogs are allowed on on leash on our pathways in the city So it's a little confusing. I've had people ask that Maybe I just need to remove the bottom sign to remove confusion Well, because when I was down and I watched the guy walk right onto the beach with the dog Right on a leash and then when you enter the beach from indiana, we do have a sign right there the main entrance and and we may have to There's getting to be more and more entry areas off of the the The not it's not really a parking area, but the the green Space where a lot of people do park on the grass They're making their own pathways onto the beach and we're finding that well people aren't walking All walking on you know the designated pathways and so they're not able to see the signs So we may have to put up a few more signs along that area And and signage is a huge process that this committee wants to work on So we know the beach one We're going to really we want to get creative with it And we want to really want to make sure we're marking that beach area correctly and and to tell you just Just to say This is really a good thing not having anything There is no beach access anymore at lake view park and even if it goes down It's it's it's a pretty rough area to be able to tell people or say This is not where you should be you should not be between indiana and illinois. Okay. This is this is no dogs But over here. Hey bring your dogs And use a leash and there's an area for you. You shouldn't be at the land. Here's your area Um quantus park this fenced in area eventually. This is where you can be, you know Same with moose same, you know the ones we've picked out cleveland It's an area that people can go And you can talk to them now and say you're not supposed to be here You know, this is not a good place. You can be here with your leash You can be here off leash. It's giving them a place to go Okay, and I understand I was on the council when we approved the on 18th street Works out fantastic great dog park A lot of people loved it. It was in a perfect spot and at that time that Area wasn't being used at all. I want to make sure that this is done right and correctly The neighbors that are affected by this these this ordinance that they're involved in this And my other question is how do you how do you enforce these things? That's whether the guy has the dog. Are you going to have an officer down there chief? It's it's like You know, how do you determine who's the good head owner who's not? and that That's part of the problem right now is Is it it's really hard to enforce? All the ordinances everywhere, you know Um It just really is so again this I think this help this is going to help with enforcement By by giving the people a place to go and be able to you know educate them This this committee really wants to work on signage and they want to work on education And just you know in the effort to be more pet friendly in the community I hope it's successful. Thank you Oh their decker Just wanted to echo Joe's comments or the girl's comments about This is kind of a phased and thing when we looked at it at the public works Is this kind of this is the phase the first phase of it? We're going to see how this goes We're going to you know monitor how this is and it and it will model things as as we go along And this this just just the first part is just a leash area It's going to be for you know, the um, but we'll later on would they have the the runs at like moose park and cleveland park They'll be working with the neighborhood moninana quarter neighborhood committee We'll be we'll be working with them to to determine what's the best place to put these things. So it's it's they are involving the neighborhoods Oh their athletes I just wanted to also mention the fact that this group is not new we've been around for a couple of years now So we're not making decisions willy-nilly You know, we're trying to do this in an appropriate manner and take it step by step And that's why it is going kind of slowly as a pet owner I would love to be able to have a dog spot right away on the north side where I can just run over and take my dogs But that's not being responsible So that's why we're taking our time to do this and I appreciate your questions But I want you to feel assured that you know asking neighbors questions That will come down the pike when we're ready, but right now we're just in the planning stages of getting these things pulled together Still comments from alders seeing none This is a roll call vote for the consent agenda yay alder heidemann alder rust Eight eyes. All right. The consent agenda is approved Reports of officers items 23 and 24 will be referred to the finance personnel committee items For resolutions items 25 through 28 will be referred to their respective committees as well Next we have reports of committee item number 29 RC number 73 22 23 by the public works committee to whom was Referred direct referral resolution number 51 22 23 by elder person's decker prella authorizing the appropriate city officials to enter into a contract With the smith group for the study and design of the harbour center marina upgrades in the two phased approach Where in phase one includes analyzing existing conditions and phase two includes Designing a new dock system and breakwater slash harbour improvements as identified in the scope of services provided August 2nd 2022 alder decker Thank you, eric. I make a motion to approve or to adopt the resolution Is there a second second motion second any discussion on this item? Alder flicky paneski. Thank you um Do do we know how much this is this study is going to cost and if it's in two phases are we Fronting the cost for the whole phase all at once Director people do not take that Yeah, the first two phases go hand in hand So, I mean the total cost of the study is roughly around 79,000 so The first part of it is looking at the wave conditions and the harbour conditions reviewing what they did back in 2016 With that kind of being a worst-case scenario to help then use that for the design of the docks But we don't long term the the phasing of this will be what is the long term ultimate build out of the Future of the marina in terms of its eventual replacement of those docks Right now we've we've we lost the the g dock which is some of our larger vessel docks So it's not available this year And for it's one of our highest earning revenue dock systems as well But it's also right at one of the beginning of the mouth of the marina Which takes a lot of the brunt of the wave action and Wave flow As well as ice flow during the winter the group will look at that Analyze it in the design and look at ultimately new dock systems for the future now Ultimately with the work that is being done on self peer the the the federal breakwater They've done significant upgrades as well as it's not completed yet So what we're we're looking at is once that is done that Reconstructed or are enhanced self breakwater The goal here is to see if that is going to enhance also help reduce the action that is affecting the marina That for therefore that in the future once that's done and studied as part of the phasing Well, maybe we're hoping is that it should help also reduce the The resiliency and the robustness that may need to be in the existing marina that's today That's why we're having so much damage And we're at the point of the end of its life of 30 years So these first two phases that's all we're authorizing is the 79,000 and the majority of it is in the design and upgrade of the dock system There's there's several dock vendors that have to be analyzed and vetted throughout this process And that's the majority of the cost of of the first two phases Thank you Additional questions on this item Seeing none. This is a roll call vote Alder Felde Aye Alder Heidemann Aye Alder Rust Aye Eight ayes All right that item is approved Next other matters authorized by law city attorney There is one ro by the city clerk submitting a license application And that will be referred to the licensing hearing and public safety committee Next is a contemplated closed session. Alder Felde Thank you, mayor. I moved convene in closed session pursuant to state mandate 19.85 1g for conferring with legal counsel for the city who is Rendering oral advice regarding strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to Litigation in which it is or is likely to be involved to wit ab ab Gayle H. Hernandez versus city sheboygan police department erd case number cr20210 190 190 EEOC case number 2 6 g 202 00011c Is there a second? Second Motion in second. This is a roll call vote to go into closed session Alder Felde Aye Alder Heidemann Aye Alder Rust Aye All right eight ayes All right that is approved. This closed session will be only for elected officials as well as chief Darmigowski and administrator wolf And we'll convene in 305 Prove adjourning please state aye Aye Any objection we are adjourned at 653. Thanks everyone