The Knowledge Argument

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here are various statements of the Knowledge Argument:

Mary's room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knowledge Argument: Entry

There are obvious changes that occur to Mary's brain when she first sees color after leaving the black and white room, even with her complete knowledge of human vision that included the fact that there would be brain changes. So Mary does learn new things after she leaves the room, but this learning makes no requirement for a nonphysicalist view.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Here are various statements of the Knowledge Argument:

Mary's room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knowledge Argument: Entry

There are obvious changes that occur to Mary's brain when she first sees color after leaving the black and white room, even with her complete knowledge of human vision that included the fact that there would be brain changes. So Mary does learn new things after she leaves the room, but this learning makes no requirement for a nonphysicalist view.

~~ Paul

I don't understand what you're saying here. What have the changes to Mary's brain got to do with anything?

If Mary gains new knowledge when first seeing colour, then not all knowledge can in principle be derived from a suitably long string of 0's and 1's, right?

[David Bailey]

I don't think this thought experiment is ideal because there are various confusing issues. In particular, brains that are deprived of certain stimulae from birth are generally damaged as a consequence - Mary might just see gray. It is hard to decide if this is significant to the discussion or not!

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I don't understand what you're saying here. What have the changes to Mary's brain got to do with anything?

For the knowledge argument to disprove physicalism, we have to assume that Mary's brain is in the same state upon leaving the room that a normal color-sighted person's brain is in. But that is obviously not the case.

If Mary gains new knowledge when first seeing colour, then not all knowledge can in principle be derived from a suitably long string of 0's and 1's, right?

This depends entirely on your definition of knowledge. Does the word encompass all the information stored in my brain?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

I don't think this thought experiment is ideal because there are various confusing issues. In particular, brains that are deprived of certain stimulae from birth are generally damaged as a consequence - Mary might just see gray. It is hard to decide if this is significant to the discussion or not!

It's absolutely signficant, since this is supposed to be an argument against physicalism.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

It's absolutely signficant, since this is supposed to be an argument against physicalism.

~~ Paul

Not at all. If knowledge is not exhausted by all possible information then physicalism is refuted. Thus if someone acquires all possible information about colour vision, yet still does not know what it is like to experience greenness, then physicalism is refuted.

You saying her brain has to be in a certain state in addition to acquiring all possible information about colour vision, is false. Indeed this seems to be what the transmission theory of consciousness would require.

You would need to say that acquiring all possible information would either put her brain in the required state, or that it is impossible for Mary to gain all possible information about colour vision.

[David Bailey]

Well I think Paul is making the point that this gedanken experiment is flawed in that it contains an element that is possibly impossible in principle - experiencing a wholly new qualia as an adult. This does seem to cloud the discussion.

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

Not at all. If knowledge is not exhausted by all possible information then physicalism is refuted. Thus if someone acquires all possible information about colour vision, yet still does not know what it is like to experience greenness, then physicalism is refuted.

One cannot acquire all possible information about color vision simply by reading about it. That is, assuming you really mean all possible information. There is nothing in the definition of physicalism that says that one can obtain all possible information about something by reading about it.

You saying her brain has to be in a certain state in addition to acquiring all possible information about colour vision, is false.

No, I'm saying that there is information (not knowledge) that she cannot acquire by reading.

You would need to say that acquiring all possible information would either put her brain in the required state, or that it is impossible for Mary to gain all possible information about colour vision.

Yes, acquiring all possible information would put her brain in the required state, but she cannot do that by reading.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

Well I think Paul is making the point that this gedanken experiment is flawed in that it contains an element that is possibly impossible in principle - experiencing a wholly new qualia as an adult.

No, I think you can experience a new qualia as an adult. But you cannot put your brain in the required state simply by reading.

The reason the Knowledge Argument excites some philosophers is because they do not pay any attention to reality when coming up with thought experiments.

~~ Paul

[David Bailey]

Paul,

Hmmm you seem to have concluded like me that this is a flawed gedanken experiment, but still want to reason using it

Maybe someone can figure out a better version.

David