Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, if the whole premise is she knows everything there is to know about red this isn't what will happen
Just a quick comment: Please be careful to notice the difference between these two statements:
(1) Mary knows everything there is to know about red.
(2) Mary knows everything that she can objectively know about red (i.e., by studying other people's brain activity).
The premise of the story about Mary is focused on #2, not #1. The big question, of course, is whether or not #1 and #2 actually identify the same set of information. I think that the logic of subjectivity should lead us to see that #1 and #2 are not exactly the same. When Mary's own brain is in "seeing red" mode, she experiences something that she cannot experience just by studying other people's brains. That which can only be understood by BEING the brain in "seeing red" mode is the qualitative experiences of "what it is like to see red."
BTW: Even if, somehow, it turns out that "knowing everything about other people's brains" necessarily puts Mary into a physical state such that she "experiences red" herself, this still reinforces my point. Even if she arrives at "what it's like to see red" by studying other people's brains, the final logical step is still required - the bottom line remains the same: She can't experience "what it is like to see red" unless her own brain is in "seeing red" mode - no matter how she got to this point. What I'm calling the "logic of subjectivity" is still in force: Mary can't understand everything there is to know about "seeing red" unless she somehow experiences, for herself, the qualitative experience of "seeing red."
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 08-28-2014 at 12:27 PM..
Thank you, but I just don't follow this. If Mary knows everything about Red then she knows more than the rest of us, including what it looks like to us, to dogs, fish and what it really is.
This Mary is hardly helpful to understanding our consciousness.
If Mary has somehow got access to everything we know about 'Red', then I see no reason to doubt that her perception of red will be just the same as ours. To talk of it being something else is like dickering about whether a reforged sword is the same sword.
if She is somehow getting is at second -hand from us, which of course includes latching onto what we know about 'Red' but in some way not getting everything we know about red, then it might well be something less, but the experience might well be what she does get. That it wasn't her experience in actual fact is irrelevant.
red is a wavelength of EMR. After we accept that we can start talking about how that wavelength strikes the retina (insert biochemistry with lots of unsaturated bonds as switches) and the electrons get "passed down" until they get to the brain.
The cascade of events after that will be the brain processing many thoughts, like 10^14/sec. The brain in most people handle "error" pretty well. but the "patterns" seen will be able to be compared to a sample set. That is what we could do right now.
Now, assuming she knows everything about red then the patterns she sees in the brain will not only represent the color red but many crazy thoughts going through her brain at the same time. The electrons start the thoughts. Many many thoughts. Like "the pink elephant went to get rainbows at the gas station". But she knows everything there is know about the color red so she would be able to point out the path ways her brain uses to store this info. It is important to realize that the memory is a thought " stored" in molecular states. Then is a "active thought" when the molecules move. But she knows this and will be able to tell us. This is where I start. But that's just crazy me.
Most knowledge is second hand. the price for a big brain getting through a small opening in a pelvic bone. So we can leave that out. But "she" knows this already and so do we. Bla bla bla. What's really cool to me. There is no "bird schools" showing birds how to be birds. How cool is that.
It cannot be explained any better than these posts of yours Gaylen. That they still fail to get the main point across is depressing. The pragmatic and concrete mind simply has no use for these kinds of philosophical ruminations. When they are used in support of theism . . . the intellectual walls are immediately erected to reject even the possibility of addressing them rigorously. I admire the clarity of your understanding of the actual issues while retaining your atheist views . . . even though I of course believe you are misguided!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
As usual, you are making no point - except that everyone is stupid if they fail to agree with with your faith -based theory, which Gaylen ought to be supporting, but isn't. You are very transparent.
As usual your bias against my spiritual beliefs colors your entire approach to my non-spiritual views . . . which are quite well-explained by Gaylen . . . to absolutely no effect. That lack of effect is what makes my point for me. It has nothing to do with my faith-based theory.
Quote:
As for Gaylenwoof, I am very impressed by his erudition and patience in explaining. I don't pretend to have grasped all he is trying to explain, and have just to retire with the idea that the philosophy of nature of experience is rather the minutiae of consciousness that may one day be answered by biology, in as much as it is anything that could be answered by biology - and I suspect if it couldn't be, it is non existent anyway.
Whatever, I believe that bot that he argues and i argue and everyone else argues does not support your theory, and you mantra that everyone is either ignorant or misguided unless they agree with you is wearing pretty thin.
My big regret is that my early efforts in this forum gave the impression you repeatedly bring up . . . "that everyone is either ignorant or misguided unless they agree with me." It never was true and still isn't . . . but first impressions are indeed lasting ones. My 30 years as Professor did not serve me well in communicating in this forum early on. And try as I might, I still seem unable to remove the demeanor sufficiently from my posts. But let's get real . . . when the facts are that people are NOT getting something that is so well-explained . . . there are few positive conclusions that can be drawn from it.
red is a wavelength of EMR. After we accept that we can start talking about how that wavelength strikes the retina (insert biochemistry with lots of unsaturated bonds as switches) and the electrons get "passed down" until they get to the brain.
The cascade of events after that will be the brain processing many thoughts, like 10^14/sec. The brain in most people handle "error" pretty well. but the "patterns" seen will be able to be compared to a sample set. That is what we could do right now.
Now, assuming she knows everything about red then the patterns she sees in the brain will not only represent the color red but many crazy thoughts going through her brain at the same time. The electrons start the thoughts. Many many thoughts. Like "the pink elephant went to get rainbows at the gas station". But she knows everything there is know about the color red so she would be able to point out the path ways her brain uses to store this info. It is important to realize that the memory is a thought " stored" in molecular states. Then is a "active thought" when the molecules move. But she knows this and will be able to tell us. This is where I start. But that's just crazy me.
Most knowledge is second hand. the price for a big brain getting through a small opening in a pelvic bone. So we can leave that out. But "she" knows this already and so do we. Bla bla bla. What's really cool to me. There is no "bird schools" showing birds how to be birds. How cool is that.
Thats better in opinion compared to other entries because it gets closer to explaining the compelling reason why Mary cannot associate herself with the hues in the color.
If Mary cannot associate herself unconsciously or whatever, also feelings with her chemical reactions herself upon being exposed to red, with the unique chemistry of some kind with red, there is no ability to intimately identify the red individually, Its all very simple. Just thinking color examples are a bit unique. When something is seen it is also an event of being exposed to something and is a suggestion.
Last edited by Sophronius; 08-28-2014 at 10:08 PM..
Reason: removed some for ease in flow of thread
Just a quick comment: Please be careful to notice the difference between these two statements:
(1) Mary knows everything there is to know about red.
(2) Mary knows everything that she can objectively know about red (i.e., by studying other people's brain activity).
The premise of the story about Mary is focused on #2, not #1.
Unless you assume dualism, there's no difference between the two. As I said earlier, this is just another example of an argument which tries to sneak in the assumption of dualism into the premises. In this case, it is carefully worded to play to people who feel there needs to be some magic in addition to normal biology going on. To the rest of us, it is pretty transparent.
Sure, if you want to present other arguments which show there is a distinction between the two premises, that's great. But this argument isn't one which is going to let us do that, since answering that question is required before we can proceed to evaluate it. And note that simply saying "logic of blah" isn't an argument.
Quote:
When Mary's own brain is in "seeing red" mode, she experiences something that she cannot experience just by studying other people's brains.
No way to know. The brain makes weird associations between things. Smells trigger memories. Sights make you feel hungry. Colors make you remember music. Who are you to say what this hypothetical imaginary person will and won't experience?
Quote:
That which can only be understood by BEING the brain in "seeing red" mode is the qualitative experiences of "what it is like to see red."
Maybe, maybe not. Let's see some peer-reviewed research on what all-knowing people who haven't been exposed to red but know everything possible about it can and can't subjectively experience.
Of course there's none to offer here since the premise is impossible. People aren't capable of being omniscient, and it is impossible to know everything objective about something without having your eyes, retina, optic nerve and so on exposed to it, so this argument can't be talking about human biology here on our earth. It has nothing to do with how our reality works, so any conclusions you draw from it are totally unrelated to how human brains actually function here in this world.
Quote:
BTW: Even if, somehow, it turns out that "knowing everything about other people's brains" necessarily puts Mary into a physical state such that she "experiences red" herself, this still reinforces my point. Even if she arrives at "what it's like to see red" by studying other people's brains, the final logical step is still required - the bottom line remains the same: She can't experience "what it is like to see red" unless her own brain is in "seeing red" mode - no matter how she got to this point. What I'm calling the "logic of subjectivity" is still in force: Mary can't understand everything there is to know about "seeing red" unless she somehow experiences, for herself, the qualitative experience of "seeing red."
Again, the whole "even if everything I'm saying is wrong I'm still right" doesn't give me confidence that you're presenting a useful view here. If both A and ~A are consistent with your idea, what is this concept actually adding to the conversation? Basically, this is admitting that your idea predicts that we could see pretty much anything. That's not particularly useful for adding to our knowledge - useful ideas let us model and predict the future and narrow down possibilities, not say that anything might happen.
Specifically, here you're saying if, for example, Mary uses physical machines to study brain function in others and creates a purely natural machine consistent with her monist understanding which allows her to experience red at the push of a button and you'd still call this a failing of naturalism to understand experience.
As usual your bias against my spiritual beliefs colors your entire approach to my non-spiritual views . . . which are quite well-explained by Gaylen . . . to absolutely no effect. That lack of effect is what makes my point for me. It has nothing to do with my faith-based theory. My big regret is that my early efforts in this forum gave the impression you repeatedly bring up . . . "that everyone is either ignorant or misguided unless they agree with me." It never was true and still isn't . . . but first impressions are indeed lasting ones. My 30 years as Professor did not serve me well in communicating in this forum early on. And try as I might, I still seem unable to remove the demeanor sufficiently from my posts. But let's get real . . . when the facts are that people are NOT getting something that is so well-explained . . . there are few positive conclusions that can be drawn from it.
Post wondering why poster is perceived as condescending of people who disagree with his opinions ends with condescending attack of people who disagree with his opinions. Yep, it is a mystery why that is the impression people get.
Notice the difference between what you've said and what the premise of the story about Mary:
Arequipa: Mary has somehow got access to everything we know about 'Red'.
Gaylen: Mary knows everything that she can objectively know about red (i.e., by studying other people's brain activity).
Do you see the difference?
"if She is somehow getting is at second -hand from us, which of course includes latching onto what we know about 'Red' but in some way not getting everything we know about red, then it might well be something less," That Mary knowing nothing herself about red but getting some information about it by studying our brain patterns seems to be no more relevant than comparing my perceptions of Yangon as a visitor with someone's who lives there.
Unless we are comparing Mary's (subjective) like with ours, I don't see how pointing up the difference in perceptions helps us in understanding what consciousness IS. It still sounds too much like coming up with a supposed problem for monism and inventing an imaginary being:Mary - without subjective (1) experience of Red of her own - that will illustrate the idea.
The idea of a being that has no personal experience of red and no inherited experience of red, learning about red by understanding our brain -patters is giving us something so obviously lacking in any idea of what we are seeing that it is pretty obvious she knows nothing of the experience of seeing red. We got the idea of the mental pixels that give us Red and what they actually are. I have said that f biology can't give a full explanation now, it is being unfair to the promissory note to say that it can never explain it. (2)
(1) and that is overlooking the reliably objective aspects - as though everything of our reception and interpretation of red, being subjective, was some kind of imagined mirage The radar - information of 'interpreted' but is demonstrably reliable.
(2) it is remarkable how a pipe and rainclouds stimulated the old stodge. I came up witht he simile: 'it is like a philosophical loan company who loaned indefinite credit to biology and then suddenly foreclosed on the debt, hoping to put it out of business. If knowledge was business, that would be regarded as sharp practice.
As usual your bias against my spiritual beliefs colors your entire approach to my non-spiritual views . . . which are quite well-explained by Gaylen . . . to absolutely no effect. That lack of effect is what makes my point for me. It has nothing to do with my faith-based theory. My big regret is that my early efforts in this forum gave the impression you repeatedly bring up . . . "that everyone is either ignorant or misguided unless they agree with me." It never was true and still isn't . . . but first impressions are indeed lasting ones. My 30 years as Professor did not serve me well in communicating in this forum early on. And try as I might, I still seem unable to remove the demeanor sufficiently from my posts. But let's get real . . . when the facts are that people are NOT getting something that is so well-explained . . . there are few positive conclusions that can be drawn from it.
Your demeanour can be forgiven. The misrepresentation, obfuscation and wriggling that you persistently engage in in efforts to give your faith -based theories credibility can also be forgiven.
Your efforts to discredit your critics by casting nasturtiums upon their education, understanding, thinking processes and intelligence can also be forgiven. You would not freakin' believe how forgiving we are.
What we cannot do is let you get away with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
