On Mary's room.

[Playfishpaste]

Do you guys consider Qualia to be a different kind of knowledge, rather then simply a part of a possible canon of thought?

I for one, side with the skeptical on this one. I think if mary theoretically could have all of the possible knowledge of red in her mind, she would not need to experience it to be able to describe it.

[Denny Crane!]

I to am skeptical in as much as I understand it. I believe qualia to be a function of sensory perception not a perception in itself - I think.

[Lord Romanus III]

Do you guys consider Qualia to be a different kind of knowledge, rather then simply a part of a possible canon of thought?

I for one, side with the skeptical on this one. I think if mary theoretically could have all of the possible knowledge of red in her mind, she would not need to experience it to be able to describe it.

Can you please explain what it is? ( I refuse to google. )

[Amorphos]

I don’t know anything about qualia but I think I get the thing of it by this…

I think if mary theoretically could have all of the possible knowledge of red in her mind, she would not need to experience it to be able to describe it

This is something I have thought much about in a way, on the one hand I think you need to experience red to understand what it fully is, although you could probably describe it to a blind man.

He would of course only know it if he had enough comparatives. lets say he was colour blind and knew yellow and blue but the receptors in his eyes were damaged so he couldn’t pick up red. He would know what colours are and the differences so could perhaps have a very good idea what red is by that.

Now think of an eighth colour!!!

On a more spiritual level, I think existence is, that we may know through experience. An infinite mind could conceive all things but could it know what they are?

V good questioning to start this section off!

[Frédéric Chopin]

Can you please explain what it is? ( I refuse to google. )

Qualia are, if I remember correctly, are the subjective qualities of an experience. Mary's room refers to a thought experiment in which Mary investigates the world from a black and white room learning everything to be learned about principles of color without experiencing color. It asks if she would learn anything by leaving the room and experiencing color.

I do not see qualia as a separate kind of knowledge or anything. If Mary knew everything about color, it would include an understanding of the neurological processes that create the sense of redness. She would know exactly what to expect when experiencing red for the first time.

[Amorphos]

If Mary knew everything about color, it would include an understanding of the neurological processes that create the sense of redness.

i dont think the basis is correct...

Firstly we must presume there is light in this room, otherwise we only have the idea of it. I couldn’t explain what light is.

Equally the neurological processes are already developed in this experiment, so basically it is asking if we would know something if we already know it?

The experiment would be far better if we considered mary as a baby which was born into the room never having experienced light.

Then all you have are the descriptions! You could teach her for her whole lifetime, firstly to understand English [or given language] just as you would a normal child.

Thence we arrive at a point where she is an adult with full cognitive abilities.

Then we may ask the question what is red!
Then we could take her out of the room and see if she thinks that what was described is the same as what she now experiences.


agreed?

[Frédéric Chopin]

Equally the neurological processes are already developed in this experiment, so basically it is asking if we would know something if we already know it?

The experiment would be far better if we considered mary as a baby which was born into the room never having experienced light.

I think this is how Mary is considered in the experiment as the reason for the black and white room is to prevent Mary from experiencing color.

Wikipedia quotes the original description of the experiment.

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. 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’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

[Amorphos]

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room

For the experiment to be valid she would have to be born in there and be taught to be a brilliant scientist, otherwise she has already had the experience.

She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina,

She would only have the information of what the light is, in my mind she would only know that light is wavelengths to which we attribute colours. Imagine a sine-wave and that she is taught that one kind is blue and another is red, what would that mean?

In conclusion I don’t think she would have a clue what colour is in reality.

[Frédéric Chopin]

She would only have the information of what the light is, in my mind she would only know that light is wavelengths to which we attribute colours. Imagine a sine-wave and that she is taught that one kind is blue and another is red, what would that mean?

In conclusion I don’t think she would have a clue what colour is in reality.

It states she understands the process through which light from the sky stimulating the retina leads to the assertion that the sky is blue. I interpret this as stating that she understands the full process of the central nervous system. With such an understanding she would not only know about the nature of light and the fact that we attribute colors to different wavelengths but the process by which we do this. She would comprehend the processes behind the experience of color, and thus experience would provide her with no new information.

Unless these qualia exist outside of her physical, mental processes I don't see how experiencing red would be any different than understanding the neurology of red. I also don't see any reason to accept the existence of extraphysical qualia.

edit: She might acquire a new ability: to recognize red based on sight, but I don't think she would actually acquire any new knowledge.

[Ummon]

For qualia to exist, a perceiver which is separate from itself must exist (a homunculus). For the purposes of science, qualia are babble.

What we have are states of the system. Each system has its own, invariances allowing.

[Amorphos]

Hi fred

With such an understanding she would not only know about the nature of light and the fact that we attribute colors to different wavelengths but the process by which we do this.

I see what you mean, though I question if she can attribute colours to the wavelengths. Again this is counter to the purpose of the experiment, if she knows colour there is nothing to learn.

It’s a good experiment if we can clarify that in the premise she doesn’t already have the experience-knowledge she is seeking.

If then she does not know what the colour red is, but someone has described it to her [its an interesting thing to attempt for sure; how would we describe redness?], would that be anything like red as experienced?

Hence we arrive at the critical point where the answer is in the description of what is red. We have to describe that without experience of it.

In conclusion I don’t think mary would have a clue what red really is!

Unless that is, we cant find a way to describe it perfectly, even then I don’t think the description would marry the experienced version. Indeed if we take the same results for every aspect of the mind, we would be left with the notion that;

Given all knowledge of everything, we would know nothing without the experience of a thing’ [quetz]

[Hippolord]

I belive that yes, you need to have experianced something to understand it. But this also goes a step firther, in saying that you need to experiance something in order to understand all around it, including it's opposite. You need to have experianced pain to fully understand what it is to feel joy. You must have experianced nothing, in order to fully understand everything.

We all preceive the universe in dofferent ways, whether threw our senses and experiances or through common chance. Thus we are all guranteed different outcomes through out life (And possibly after), so it would be foolsh to think that one preceives a tre in the same nature that you do. You could see Green upon the leaves of the tree, and the person would agree with you/. But what they may preceive to be green ccould be very different than what you preceive it to be. We have all just agreed to call the color of the leaves upon that tree "Green".

Thusly in order to undersatnd all reality, you must have experianced all realities, and this is an immpossibilitie you will never be anyone else. Lest oyu have experianced all that they do. In my opinion this is one of the attempts of society. The realization that you can never walkin someone elses shoes, but it is the attem,pt to try you hardest in order to fully understand them, and to get along with them, in the end in order to increse the range of your own perceptions of the universe.

Thusly if we all are guranteed different outcomes through out life, then does that not mean that there are infinite possibilites, and that we trully do have free will, no matter what the holy men, and non believers may say. And does that not inveriable mean that we have an infinite universe, from which you cannot take away. For how does way go about taking from infinitie? And thusly if one cannot take from the universe does that not prove the first law "You cannot destroy matter or energy". Thusly as stated you cannot take away from the universe, because it is infinite, because there are inifinite possibilities, because there are infinite different perceptions and view points...

But what if there is not? What if the is a finite amount of outcomes to any action in the universe, each one that you have a chance of getting depending upon the nature of the action. Thusly when one puts down a cup, there is a chance that it will fall straigh through the table. And since there is a finite amount of outcomes, that means you have to pick/experiance one of them. This would eman that the universe in not inifiite and that things may be lost, to never return. Even knowledge (Or the mind lest you take in the properties of Dualism) itself may be able to suffer this fate. Thusly one may assume that the universe that you were born in may not be the universe you live in today, on any level. Because at some point n time, it was changed, or something was removed from our finite universe. In which case there is no free will, you will always have one of so many outcomes, from which you have complete control over.

Or does the fact that one has control over all outcomes that happen unto them, however finite they may be, mean that they are free? And that invariable that we are all god within our own universe, we are masters of it. And all of it's outcomes and through our actions we may change it permanantly, thusly indeed creating a new universe, and caliming mastership of all things in this universe, in which you simple actions have made this new universe "Be"...?

[Amorphos]

Yah, right from the start its all about comparatives, we could even go so far as saying that; to understand 2+2 we must have the experience of 2 objects to make the primary distinction necessary for the equation.

Not sure about the green and the threes, we do all have the same mechanisms [human body] for reading the external world, unless it is faulty. Perhaps beauty is more subjective and things like that.

We walk in each others shoes in that those shoes are the same for all of us as concerns the environment. As you say though we do see it all from differing perspectives, so I would go with both we can and we cannot understand all others do in varying degrees.

Are there not finite outcomes? Ours is the choice ~ except when boss/wife says not lols. I think you are right as to infinity, overall there would be infinite potential, what we vaguely describe as fate would be its effect. Just when you think you got every angle covered something else pops up to throw you out. I would go so far as to say that the more we apply this, the more it is so, the greater our calculations the greater the unpredictability. Such things are even built into the universe as law.

Thusly one may assume that the universe that you were born in may not be the universe you live in today, on any level. Because at some point n time, it was changed, or something was removed from our finite universe.

You propose a dichotomy of more than one universe, yet we have already arrived at indestructible energy that cannot be taken away from. The change is only in the transient aspects like the waves on the ocean. Moreover that change is the same change! There is not two things changing only one surface of the sea.


that was a bit of a journey

[Hippolord]

Yah, right from the start its all about comparatives, we could even go so far as saying that; to understand 2+2 we must have the experience of 2 objects to make the primary distinction necessary for the equation.

Not sure about the green and the threes, we do all have the same mechanisms [human body] for reading the external world, unless it is faulty. Perhaps beauty is more subjective and things like that.

We walk in each others shoes in that those shoes are the same for all of us as concerns the environment. As you say though we do see it all from differing perspectives, so I would go with both we can and we cannot understand all others do in varying degrees.

Are there not finite outcomes? Ours is the choice ~ except when boss/wife says not lols. I think you are right as to infinity, overall there would be infinite potential, what we vaguely describe as fate would be its effect. Just when you think you got every angle covered something else pops up to throw you out. I would go so far as to say that the more we apply this, the more it is so, the greater our calculations the greater the unpredictability. Such things are even built into the universe as law.



You propose a dichotomy of more than one universe, yet we have already arrived at indestructible energy that cannot be taken away from. The change is only in the transient aspects like the waves on the ocean. Moreover that change is the same change! There is not two things changing only one surface of the sea.


that was a bit of a journey

True we all have the same mechanisims. But who is to know whether or not i see the same green you do? I could see green and it may look like some other color, but i have been told since birth that, that color is green, so when asked what color the leave srae i say "Green", what i am actually seeing is a matter of perspective. Now don't get me wrong i am actually seeing "green" but it's not because the color Green is universal, is see it as green because i have been told, that, that is what it is.

Could i not argue that all men are in adiffering mental enviorment, which would protract it's self unto his physical enviorment, effecting it deeply. Thusly we do not all have a similar enviormental "Shoe", nor do we perceive it the same. In fact we all, if you will allow me ot make a stretch, perceive a different universe, because we all have different things that have effected it, we have all had things taken from it, and put in to it. Thusly we each have our own universe, only through perception though, and you are the center of this new universe, because there is no other way to perceive it, than from the inside looking out. (If you have found another way, please tell me)

So the more we act, the more reactions there shall be? I belive, that as the gods of our own universe, we do have infinite potential. Thusly the potential to create it, to change it, to destroy it? And who is more fitting of the titile of "God, lest we be able to change things which have not yet happened, or have... But is there anything that has yet ot happen? Would not the idea that there are things that are to happen that have not, mean that we are not free? So i ordain that our universe has no future, without us. (Thats what i belive)

True, but if one were to destroy by some stretch of the mind, one of the waves on the sea, would it still be the same sea, just with different values? And is something wiht idfferent values truly the same thing after all? If i were to destory matter within the universe, or remove something form my own, am i not within a different universe, have i not made a different rerality, or at the least, changed my own? (Thats the arguement against what i belive)

The journys not over...it never is.

[magickyleo101]

Do you guys consider Qualia to be a different kind of knowledge, rather then simply a part of a possible canon of thought?

I for one, side with the skeptical on this one. I think if mary theoretically could have all of the possible knowledge of red in her mind, she would not need to experience it to be able to describe it.

I'd be interested in hearing you present the argument in some more depth because it looks like we may have learned the Mary argument from different angles. I've always seen the argument as an argument against reductive materialism which goes (roughly):

• Assume you had this Mary girl in a black and white room and that she knew every physical fact in the world (e.g. how the brain works, all the physcial laws, all the placements, motions, etc. of all the particles, etc.). She's never left the room and she's never seen any color except black or white.
• If reductive materialism is true, then all the facts in the world are physical facts.
• So if reductive materialism is true, then Mary knows all the facts.
• But she doesn't know what it's like to see red and what it's like to see red is a fact.
• Therefore, there must be non-physical facts since there are facts that you can fail to know despite knowing all the physical facts.
• So reductive materialism is false.

The best response I've seen to the Mary argument says that there are two different kinds of knowing - "knowing how" and "knowing that" - and that only "knowing that" involves knowing a fact. Knowing "what it's like to see red" is a kind of "knowing how" (i.e. it's knowing how to call up the memory of the experience) and so knowing all the facts doesn't mean knowing how what it's like to see red.

The response to this response is that there's actually no distinction between knowing that and knowing how, but the argument for that claim is longer than I can present here.

[Playfishpaste]

I'd be interested in hearing you present the argument in some more depth because it looks like we may have learned the Mary argument from different angles. I've always seen the argument as an argument against reductive materialism which goes (roughly):

• Assume you had this Mary girl in a black and white room and that she knew every physical fact in the world (e.g. how the brain works, all the physcial laws, all the placements, motions, etc. of all the particles, etc.). She's never left the room and she's never seen any color except black or white.
• If reductive materialism is true, then all the facts in the world are physical facts.
• So if reductive materialism is true, then Mary knows all the facts.
• But she doesn't know what it's like to see red and what it's like to see red is a fact.
• Therefore, there must be non-physical facts since there are facts that you can fail to know despite knowing all the physical facts.
• So reductive materialism is false.

The best response I've seen to the Mary argument says that there are two different kinds of knowing - "knowing how" and "knowing that" - and that only "knowing that" involves knowing a fact. Knowing "what it's like to see red" is a kind of "knowing how" (i.e. it's knowing how to call up the memory of the experience) and so knowing all the facts doesn't mean knowing how what it's like to see red.

The response to this response is that there's actually no distinction between knowing that and knowing how, but the argument for that claim is longer than I can present here.

My argument is that "what it's like to see red" is something mary already knows because she knows everything about neurology and the way red interacts with the brain. If this is true, then she should simply be able to channel red into her visual cortex. That's the problem with omniscience. If you're omniscient, you already know how, you know everything. You know how everything feels and you understand why it does.

[magickyleo101]

My argument is that "what it's like to see red" is something mary already knows because she knows everything about neurology and the way red interacts with the brain. If this is true, then she should simply be able to channel red into her visual cortex. That's the problem with omniscience. If you're omniscient, you already know how, you know everything. You know how everything feels and you understand why it does.

Does that really follow, though? I think the confusion maybe is coming from the definition of "omniscient" you're using. Sometimes people define it as "knowing everything," but really the definition should be something closer to "knowing everything that's true" or "knowing how to do everything that's possible."

Otherwise Mary would have to know things like "how to make a square circle."

[Playfishpaste]

Does that really follow, though? I think the confusion maybe is coming from the definition of "omniscient" you're using. Sometimes people define it as "knowing everything," but really the definition should be something closer to "knowing everything that's true" or "knowing how to do everything that's possible."

Otherwise Mary would have to know things like "how to make a square circle."

She does. She knows everything.

That's the premise, having someone who's omniscient, but lacks physical experience with the actual thing. If you have that much of an understanding of the world, it is a safe bet to say you could simulate for yourself what the world would be like, and it would be accurate, ala the matrix.

And Ummon. I think a distinction may need to be made here. While I agree with her knowing what it is to see red because of her episodic memory, I also think she could know what it was simply by piecing the experience together empirically and by process of elimination in her head. For instance, how a monk would have visions of things that don't actually exist, or think of completely nothing (an incomprehensible thought) whilst meditating.

So even if Mary was unable to perceive Red, she would somehow still have perceptual knowledge of it, because she could figure it out as she would a puzzle. Course this could still be argued as perception, but I think it's something different. I don't think the monks perceive nothing, since it can't be felt, but they still know of it.

[Ummon]

And Ummon. I think a distinction may need to be made here. While I agree with her knowing what it is to see red because of her episodic memory, I also think she could know what it was simply by piecing the experience together empirically and by process of elimination in her head. For instance, how a monk would have visions of things that don't actually exist, or think of completely nothing (an incomprehensible thought) whilst meditating.

So even if Mary was unable to perceive Red, she would somehow still have perceptual knowledge of it, because she could figure it out as she would a puzzle. Course this could still be argued as perception, but I think it's something different. I don't think the monks perceive nothing, since it can't be felt, but they still know of it.

I think this would lead us into neural networks theory. I am fully disposed to discuss this in detail with you.

I must first ask you, though, how much do you know of neural networks, mental imagery, how it works, etc.? We leave the philosophy route on this way, of course.

[magickyleo101]

She does. She knows everything.

That's the premise, having someone who's omniscient, but lacks physical experience with the actual thing. If you have that much of an understanding of the world, it is a safe bet to say you could simulate for yourself what the world would be like, and it would be accurate, ala the matrix.

I don't think that's quite correct. Here's how the argument is usually presented:

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. 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 chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false.

Source

The premise isn't that she's omniscient.