What Mary Didn't Know & Perception As Language

TheMadFool

Mary's Room Thought Experiment basically asks you to imagine a woman, Mary, who's confined to a room that doesn't have anything that's red. However, Mary knows everything that can be put in statements about red - its wavelength, the red cones, the neural pathways involved, the brain states, etc.

The question: Does Mary learn anything new when she actually sees red?

Perception as language

Perceptions (sight/smell/touch/taste/smell) are highly specialized languages, each dedicated to a narrow band of the perceptual field (all that can be perceived).

The number 0 is called sifr in Persian, zero in English and sunya in Hindi. However, when we translate 0 between these languages, there's neither addition/deletion to the net information content of 0. Sifr = Zero = Sunya = 0 [same informational content]

Red is 750 nm (wavelength of red light). It's (750 nm) what red actually is. The color red is what 750 is in eye language. We can translate red (750 nm) into sound, a note that has a frequency of 750 Hz and this can be done for the other senses too.

Conclusion

It doesn't make sense then to say that Mary learns something new by looking at red, after all it's just 750 in a language (eye dialect) and can be translated into the language of other senses as outlined above.

Update
Can perception be treated as a language?

The only side to language that interests me is how meanings don't change with the language they're expressed (like 0 in my example above) i.e. the net informational content of the different words in different languages that all mean the same thing is constant. Note here that, meaning is usually an abstraction (classes of objects).

Come now to redness. Physiologists claims that red = 750 nm, a wavelength of light. Consider now the possibility that vision is a language. If so, redness is simply 750 nm in the language of eyes and just as sifr in Persian and sunya in Hindi, despite being different words in different languages contain the same information, zero, no less no more, the visual perception of redness (a word in eye dialect) doesn't possess more information than 750 (nm).

tim wood

A little more vivid, perhaps. You can discuss a punch in the nose all day long. I would argue that you learn something from being punched in the nose that cannot otherwise be learned. Do you argue against?

TheMadFool

A little more vivid, perhaps. You can discuss a punch in the nose all day long. I would argue that you learn something from being punched in the nose that cannot otherwise be learned. Do you argue against? — tim wood

You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blond, brunette, redhead. — Cypher

Manuel

Red is 750 nm (wavelength of red light). It's (750 nm) what red actually is. The color red is what 750 is in eye language. We can translate red (750 nm) into sound, a note that has a frequency of 750 Hz and this can be done for the other senses too. — TheMadFool

Red happens to be quantifiable to that wavelength. But a quantity is not a quality.

I have a hard time understanding how people could really believe the opposite. I mean surprise because all you have to do is look around your room or Google "red" and see a picture.

That's the experience. I mean, how is this a number?

We are speaking of two different aspects of phenomena.

Wheatley

Does Mary learn anything new when she actually sees red? — TheMadFool

Not in the same sense that we learn math. To say Mary learns anything we first need to broaden our concept of learning.

TheMadFool

Red happens to be quantifiable to that wavelength. But a quantity is not a quality. — Manuel

Begging the question.

Not in the same sense that we learn math. If Mary does actually learn anything, we need to broaden our concept of learning. — Wheatley

What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). It's like a way of looking at something, a perspective if you will. The ears perceive of 750 (Hz) differently. Translations, back and forth, between languages (of the senses).

Wheatley

What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). — TheMadFool

Can your prove that?

TheMadFool

Can your prove that? — Wheatley

How do we know red is 750 (nm)? Isn't that a bridge we've already crossed?

Wheatley

How do we know red is 750 (nm)? Isn't that a bridge we've already crossed? — TheMadFool

A child knows what red is.

Manuel

What is red? It's the eye's way of perceiving 750 (nm). It's like a way of looking at something, a perspective if you will. The ears perceive of 750 (Hz) differently. Translations, back and forth, between languages (of the senses). — TheMadFool

That's the wave length of red.

That's not the answer you get if you ask any person to point to you to something red.

If you ask a scientist, then they'll speak of wavelengths.

Red is the colour of blood, or certain apples or of fire hydrants.

TheMadFool

A child knows what red is. — Wheatley

So? It's the eye's, child's or adult's, way of translating 750 (nm) for the brain.

TheMadFool

That's the wave length of red.

That's not the answer you get if you ask any person to point to you to something red.

If you ask a scientist, then they'll speak of wavelengths.

Red is the colour of blood, or certain apples or of fire hydrants. — Manuel

Yet, you grasped my point.

Wheatley

It's the eye's, child's or adult's, way of translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool

red is 750 (nm — TheMadFool

Are these two statements equivalent?

TheMadFool

Are these two statements equivalent? — Wheatley

Why do you ask?

TheMadFool

Wheatley

Why do you ask? — TheMadFool

Because it seems like describing red scientifically is different than perceiving red. The word "learning" is thrown into the conversation, and I think it's entirely unnecessary. :chin:

TheMadFool

Because it seems like describing red scientifically is different that perceiving red. The word "learning" is thrown into the conversation and I don't know why. :chin: — Wheatley

Red is 750 (nm). The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain. You could, hypothetically, change the perception red, say into some other color (I believe there's a quaint thought experiment on just that) but you can't change that red is 750 (nm).

Wheatley

The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain. — TheMadFool

Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification.

TheMadFool

Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification. — Wheatley

Explain why?

Wheatley

Explain why? — TheMadFool

If it were that simple we wouldn't be spending so much money researching consciousness. The reality is, we don't really know what perceiving "red" means. Not yet, at least.

TheMadFool

If it were that simple we wouldn't be spending so much money researching consciousness. — Wheatley

Fair point but that's not actually a reason is it?

Wheatley

Fair point but that's not actually a reason is it? — TheMadFool

A reason for what?

TheMadFool

A reason for what? — Wheatley

Hmm.. I bet that's controversial and an oversimplification.
— Wheatley

Explain why? — TheMadFool

:chin:

Wheatley

The perception of red is merely the eye translating 750 (nm) for the brain — TheMadFool

How do you know? I don't trust the YouTube video.

TheMadFool

How do you know? — Wheatley

Physics? :chin:

Wheatley

Physics? :chin: — TheMadFool

What about biology? How does my brain perceive red?

TheMadFool

What about biology? How does my brain perceive red? — Wheatley

Biology & physics. Sorry to have forgotten about that.

Wheatley

↪TheMadFool

So physics and biology answer Mary's room. Brilliant. :party:

TheMadFool

So physics and biology answer Mary's room. Brilliant. — Wheatley

You don't have to be so condescendingly sarcastic. Come back, if you wish, when your mood improves. G'day.

Wheatley

I'm allowed to be critical. Whatever. :sad:

TheMadFool

:flower:

What Mary Didn't Know & Perception As Language

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions