She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like "red", "blue", and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence "The sky is blue". ... — frank
For example a table is not a table to people who have no use or need for tables. It is just an object of curiosity perhaps but they don't 'see' a table — I like sushi
I think the thought experiment is supposed to have implications for physicalism, along the lines of: there are aspects of the mental that aren't physical. — frank
But how would you describe the concept of color? Of red? — frank
I don't understand how that has anything to do with it? I can describe colours to congenially blind people by way of referring to others senses. — I like sushi
Basically he is asking is there anything to do with the perception of colour other than our sensory input — I like sushi
Assuming that Mary is an adult female and that she has got a functional uterus, at a minimum she sees the color red every 28 days. Some thought experiment... — Olivier5
You're confused. khaled's objection is valid because the thought experiment specifically mentions Mary knows everything physical. If I know everything about how Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, would that mean I'd need a space suit? Or would we have proven something non-physical since actually being on the moon leads to my suffocating, but presuming I know everything about landing on the moon doesn't require me to suffocate? Both of these are kind of ridiculous.khaled's objection isn't valid because the thought experiment specifically mentions Mary knows everything physical. — TheMadFool
You're confused — InPitzotl
I don't understand how that has anything to do with it? I can describe colours to congenially blind people by way of referring to others senses. — I like sushi
It's kind of presumptuous to diagnose disagreements. You should just state your business, not theorize what you think is wrong with me such that I dare disagree with you.It takes time to understand these things. — TheMadFool
The mind is involved when you ride a ship to the moon. Surely Neil had quite an astounding experience. There's an argument to be had that Neil's experience of going to the moon is still physical, and knowing everything physical about Neil's experience is either not equivalent to going to the moon, or requires going to the moon.In the bodily and mental activity of seeing red, is the mind not involved? — TheMadFool
It's kind of presumptuous to diagnose disagreements. You should just state your business, not theorize what you think is wrong with me such that I dare disagree with you. — InPitzotl
Mary actually experience seeing red, which is physical — InPitzotl
The argument is that Mary's experience is new knowledge.
She has knowledge of something that isn't physical — frank
Nonsense.This is where you slip up I'm afraid. — TheMadFool
I want to pause here and take note of something very specific. The claim under scrutiny is whether physicalism is challenged by this or not.This is exactly what's up for debate. — TheMadFool
Not in my mind it isn't. This is about whether Mary's room challenges physicalism; not whether physicalism is true or not.Is experiencing red completely physical or not? That, my friend, is the question. — TheMadFool
Ah, but you can do exactly that... if your goal is to answer the question of whether Mary's room challenges physicalism. If a presumption of physicalism is not challenged by Mary's room, then Mary's room does not challenge physicalism.You can't assume what needs to be proven unless you want to run around in circles. — TheMadFool
Does Mary gain new knowledge from seeing red or a new ability? — RogueAI
With a little more precision, let's assume indeed Mary had the ability to see red. By that I mean that if Mary sees a 750nm LED glowing, then Mary has "experience x". Suppose Mary can also see green: if Mary sees a 550nm LED glowing, then Mary has "experience q".We would assume she already had the ability to see red, there was just none in the environment. — frank
Mary learned something new. Okay, but what? Mary can't use what she learned to imply anything other than that she had a novel experience.It should be a no-brainer that she learned something new. — frank
What forces us to say she learned about something non-physical? If we're physicalists, Mary is physical. Mary learned something about something physical. Mary didn't even learn anything about red... not yet.If knowledge is JTB or some other internalist interpretation, then it looks like we'd have to say she learned about something non-physical. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.