Physicalism

[The Cadet]

Her knowledge of what something is like is not physical.

How can you make this claim? I don't see this proposition as particularly supportable, honestly.

 

[Loudmouth]

You say that you accept the scientific method, but you have not indicated how you resolve any of the problems involved with it. How do you deal with Hempel's paradox? How do you deal with the problem of grue, blite, and blurple? How do you avoid the tacking problem? You don't -- you don't even recognize the existence of any of these problems.

We get it. You reject the scientific method.

Do you have anything else to contribute?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Physicalism doesn't claim that an ordinary scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek; it only claims that a theoretical super scientist can understand sex with Salma Hayek. The fact that I don't remember how to solve high school algebra problems doesn't imply that a high school algebra student can't solve those problems.

She looked better before Science got a hold of her.

 

[Zosimus]

at this point i'm not quite sure what your argument is attempting to prove or say.

i was wondering if you was going to catch this.
this is also incorrect, the cones do not produce red, the brain does.
this type of argument is now moving into how a color TV works, and there is nothing mystical about a TV.

like i said, i'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say here.

Neither cones nor the brain produces red. Red is the name given to ultraviolet radiation in certain wavelengths.

The argument is quite simple. Let's rehash.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#3.1

Mary knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before her release.

But there are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.

Therefore, there are non-physical facts concerning human color vision.

If you disagree with this, please state how you would convince a recently raped woman that you know what it's like to be raped because you know all the physical facts associated with rape.

 

[crjmurray]

Neither cones nor the brain produces red. Red is the name given to ultraviolet radiation in certain wavelengths.

The argument is quite simple. Let's rehash.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#3.1

Mary knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before her release.

But there are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.

Then she doesn't know all physical facts.

 

[Zosimus]

How can you make this claim? I don't see this proposition as particularly supportable, honestly.

Again, you are missing the point. I am not making the claim. This is an argument that was first proposed obliquely in 1925 (Broad), restated in 1958 (Feigl), refined in 1974 (Nagel), and placed in its current form in 1982 (Jackson). I discovered it from Bonjour (1998).

If Mary has all physical knowledge about color and sight, but has never seen color, then she will still learn something new when she sees color. She will learn what it's like to see color. Thus, her physical knowledge was incomplete. Accordingly, there is knowledge of non-physical things and physicalism is false.

Counter arguments generally fall into one of the following groups:

1. It's impossible for Mary to have failed to see red (doesn't she have a period - use maxi pads?)
2. Upon release, Mary will be unable to see red and will still see in black and white.
3. Mary does not gain knowledge, per se, but rather gains a new ability (how to imagine something red).

I was simply wondering where you fell on the spectrum.

 

[Zosimus]

We get it. You reject the scientific method.

Do you have anything else to contribute?

Why are you posting to me? I get it. You think that logical fallacies lead to sure knowledge and that paradoxes arising from the use of failed methods do not count as counterarguments.

 

[crjmurray]

Again, you are missing the point. I am not making the claim. This is an argument that was first proposed obliquely in 1925 (Broad), restated in 1958 (Feigl), refined in 1974 (Nagel), and placed in its current form in 1982 (Jackson). I discovered it from Bonjour (1998).

If Mary has all physical knowledge about color and sight, but has never seen color, then she.....

THEN SHE DOESN'T HAVE ALL PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT COLOR AND SIGHT.

 

[whois]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#3.1

from the link:
In the context of his explanation of the difference between mechanistic and emergentist theories, C.D. Broad (1925) argues that even if the mechanistic theory of chemistry were true there still would be a property of ammonia that a mathematical archangel endowed with unlimited mathematical skills and “gifted with the further power of perceiving the microscopic structure of atoms” could not predict, namely its smell:

okay, but isn't this a direct result of nerve impulses to the brain?
maybe ammonia doesn't have any "smell" at all, we perceive it as such because we have the nerve impulses to tell us so.
it's my guess that there could, in theory, be organism that can't "smell" ammonia at all.
mary would know this if she possessed all physical facts.

Mary knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before her release.

But there are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.

huh?
she knows all physical facts, but there are some facts she doesn't know?

Therefore, there are non-physical facts concerning human color vision.

well, yes, like "what does 'red' mean to different people".
we can set a scientific standard for "red" as a certain frequency of light.
the color "red" will still be perceived even though it isn't exactly this frequency.

If you disagree with this, please state how you would convince a recently raped woman that you know what it's like to be raped because you know all the physical facts associated with rape.

this is dealing with experiences of different people.
i can't "know" something i haven't experienced myself.

i still don't know what you are trying to say.

 

[Zosimus]

THEN SHE DOESN'T HAVE ALL PHYSICAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT COLOR AND SIGHT.

That is a beautiful statement of faith. I salute you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Neither cones nor the brain produces red. Red is the name given to ultraviolet radiation in certain wavelengths.

The color we detect as red is not in the ultraviolet range of wavelengths.

Mary knows all the physical facts concerning human color vision before her release.

But there are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.

Therefore, there are non-physical facts concerning human color vision.

All of which you have made up.

If you disagree with this, please state how you would convince a recently raped woman that you know what it's like to be raped because you know all the physical facts associated with rape.

It appears that you don't understand the difference between subjective experience and physical facts. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Loudmouth]

from the link:
In the context of his explanation of the difference between mechanistic and emergentist theories, C.D. Broad (1925) argues that even if the mechanistic theory of chemistry were true there still would be a property of ammonia that a mathematical archangel endowed with unlimited mathematical skills and “gifted with the further power of perceiving the microscopic structure of atoms” could not predict, namely its smell:

There is no reason that a scientific or mathematical model should be able to predict subjective experiences. What they can predict is the chemical and physical interactions between ammonia and specific smell receptors on the surface of olfactory cells.

okay, but isn't this a direct result of nerve impulses to the brain?
maybe ammonia doesn't have any "smell" at all, we perceive it as such because we have the nerve impulses to tell us so.

Ammonia is chemically reactive which is what you are experiencing as smell. If a molecule does not directly or indirectly interact with any of your smell receptors, then you will not smell it.

huh?
she knows all physical facts, but there are some facts she doesn't know?

Subjective experiences are not facts.

 

[Zosimus]

from the link:
In the context of his explanation of the difference between mechanistic and emergentist theories, C.D. Broad (1925) argues that even if the mechanistic theory of chemistry were true there still would be a property of ammonia that a mathematical archangel endowed with unlimited mathematical skills and “gifted with the further power of perceiving the microscopic structure of atoms” could not predict, namely its smell:

okay, but isn't this a direct result of nerve impulses to the brain?
maybe ammonia doesn't have any "smell" at all, we perceive it as such because we have the nerve impulses to tell us so.
it's my guess that there could, in theory, be organism that can't "smell" ammonia at all.
mary would know this if she possessed all physical facts.

Certainly this argument is not as convincing as later arguments. Those of us who are intuitive, however, sense intuitively that the guy is onto something, but we struggle to put it into a bulletproof argument. That's why the argument has progressed from "What's it like to smell ammonia?" to "What's it like to be a bat?" to "What's it like to see red?" to "What's it like to be human?" It's an attempt to refine the argument to put it into a form where people who are not intuitive can understand what we are starting to realize.

huh?
she knows all physical facts, but there are some facts she doesn't know?

Yes, that's the argument. Is it unclear to you somehow?

well, yes, like "what does 'red' mean to different people".
we can set a scientific standard for "red" as a certain frequency of light.
the color "red" will still be perceived even though it isn't exactly this frequency.

Well, the word red is a symbol. We normally learn what red is when we, as children, see something red and our parents say "Red" while holding up a red shirt. At first we may misunderstand and think that red = shirt or red = look at this. However, with additional data, many people come to learn their native language within 2-3 years.

this is dealing with experiences of different people.
i can't "know" something i haven't experienced myself.

That's exactly the point. All the physical knowledge that Mary gained did not provide her all the information. She learned something when she saw red the first time. She knew something new. Thus, physical knowledge is not the only knowledge there is. Subjective knowledge can be acquired about subjective experiences. This subjective knowledge is non-physical knowledge pertaining to non-physical facts.

 

[Zosimus]

The color we detect as red is not in the ultraviolet range of wavelengths.

You are right. I meant to say electromagnetic.

All of which you have made up.

No, I have not made it up. Those nice people at Stanford university have documented exactly who made the discovery.

It appears that you don't understand the difference between subjective experience and physical facts. They aren't the same thing.

No, it appears that you don't understand the difference between them. Subjective experiences are not physical facts. They are non-physical facts. That's the point of the thought experiment. It demonstrates that it is possible to convincingly argue that non-physical facts exist.

 

[crjmurray]

You are right. I meant to say electromagnetic.


No, I have not made it up. Those nice people at Stanford university have documented exactly who made the discovery.


No, it appears that you don't understand the difference between them. Subjective experiences are not physical facts. They are non-physical facts. That's the point of the thought experiment. It demonstrates that it is possible to convincingly argue that non-physical facts exist.

It absolutely has done no such thing.

 

[whois]

That's exactly the point. All the physical knowledge that Mary gained did not provide her all the information.

okay, and?
so she doesn't know what bouncing a ball is like on the sun.
this can be easily explained by the facts mary knows.

unclear?
yes, this subject is VERY unclear, because i have no clue as to what you are trying to say.
case in point:
me and you could live together, both of us can do the very same thing at the very same time in exactly the same way.
i still would not know how you would interpret those experiences.
they might be bad for you, they might be good for you, or in some deranged mental state can cause you to go crazy.
in other words, my experience, and my interpretation of them will never be like anyone elses.
OTOH, if mary had all the physical facts, then all of the above would be explainable.

you might be suggesting that mary comes across something that she couldn't explain, even though she had all the physical facts.
in this case, yes, it would point to some kind of "non physical" reality.
the problem with this is, i haven't seen anything along those lines.
nothing leads me to believe in the supernatural for example.

 

[whois]

No, it appears that you don't understand the difference between them.

i believe this poster would sit in the corner and argue with himself

 

[Loudmouth]

You are right. I meant to say electromagnetic.

I think you meant to say "visible spectrum". All photons, from radio waves to gamma rays, are electromagnetic.

No, I have not made it up. Those nice people at Stanford university have documented exactly who made the discovery.

Made the discovery of what?

No, it appears that you don't understand the difference between them. Subjective experiences are not physical facts.

Then stop pretending that they are.

They are non-physical facts.

No, they aren't. They are subjective experiences. Facts are verifiable independent of the person making the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe this poster would sit in the corner and argue with himself

Says the person who has misrepresented scientific paper after scientific paper. Shall we go over the MA experiment again? Shall I cite those post-1953 published papers that McClintock wrote?

 

[sfs]

Why are you posting to me? I get it. You think that logical fallacies lead to sure knowledge and that paradoxes arising from the use of failed methods do not count as counterarguments.

No, you don't get it. We don't care. Science does not lead to sure knowledge, but it does lead to very useful knowledge, and that is adequate for most of us. If philosophers cannot provide a logical justification for the success of science, then that is a failure on the part of philosophers, not scientists.