What Mary Didn’t Know.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© Michael Lacewing Innate ideas Michael Lacewing.
Advertisements

Acquaintance, Phenomenal Concepts, and the Knowledge Argument David J. Chalmers.
The value of certainty. Foundationalists suppose that true beliefs held with certainty (indubitable) together with logical and linguistic analysis offer.
The Extended Mind.
The Subject-Matter of Ethics
Frank Jackson: What Mary Didn't Know
© Michael Lacewing Are any non-humans persons? Michael Lacewing.
Dolch Words.
Book review By Jackson. B
What is the World Like for Other People? Perception and Reality Things Are Not Always As They Seem...
“What Is It Like To Be a Bat?”. Depth Perception The world (visually) appears to us as though it is three-dimensional. Some things appear closer to us.
Locke v. Leibniz on innate knowledge
The ontological argument. I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor.
Lecture 20 Theories of Consciousness, Consciousness and the Mind-Body Problem.
Young people from Merseyside talk about gun and knife crime “The 11 MILLION children and young people in England have a voice” Children’s.
Philosophy and the proof of God's existence
Problems for the Idea Theory. REVIEW FROM LAST TIME.
Validity in Interpretation Reading Guide to the selection from E. D. Hirsch’s book, reprinted in Ross.
The Knowledge Argument What Mary Didn’t Know Frank Jackson.
Summer 2011 Tuesday, 8/ No supposition seems to me more natural than that there is no process in the brain correlated with associating or with.
Michael Lacewing Is the mind the brain? Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
Linguistic Relativity BCS 261 4/26/04. Issues The main question in this research is “Does language influence our perception and modes of thinking about.
The ontological argument
Introductions for Essay Two. Audience One of the problems that beginning writers have is audience. It’s hard sometimes for people to realize what their.
The Identity Theory. The Identity Theory says that mental states are physical states of the brain. Cf. Property dualism, which says they are non- physical.
Summer 2011 Wednesday, 07/06. Mental vs. Physical Items Write down 3 examples of mental items (anything that you consider to be a part of the mind) and.
 Idioms are expressions which have a meaning that is not obvious from the individual words.  The best way to understand an idiom is to see it in context.
Philosophy 4610 Philosophy of Mind Week 12: Qualia Friends and Foes.
The Knowledge Argument Mary in captivity Mary is raised from birth in the Black & White (and grey) room. Her skin pigments are altered, her hair dyed.
Introduction to Linguistics and Basic Terms
The Modal Argument. Review: The “Hard Problem”  Remember that there are three arguments that make consciousness a ‘hard’ problem. 1. Knowledge Argument.
Preliminary For our purposes, Physicalism = Materialism. Jackson is a “qualia freak”; he believes qualia are non-physical.
The knowledge argument Michael Lacewing
How to answer exam questions Basic instructions. ColorsColors Use blue or black ink. Do not use pink, red, green, phosphorus green, phosphorus blue, etc.
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding John Locke.
Philosophy 4610 Philosophy of Mind Week 11: The Problem of Consciousness.
Philosophy of Mind Week 3: Objections to Dualism Logical Behaviorism
Theories of Perception: Empirical Theory of Perception Berkeley’s Theory of Reality Direct Realism Moderate Thomistic Realism.
Knowledge Belief and Truth By Prof.Dr Shadia Abd Elkader Prof.Dr Shadia Abd Elkader.
“Epiphenomenal Qualia”. Book is in the Bookstore!
Announcements A draft of the review sheet is online. Check back on Friday for the complete version. The final exam is Wednesday June 10 th from 4-7 PM.
CONSCIOUSNESS Frank Jackson, ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia’
The argument from neural dependency A natural consequence of dualism should be that the mind itself is not damaged whenever the brain is damaged. A natural.
Philosophy 4610 Philosophy of Mind Week 4: Objections to Behaviorism The Identity Theory.
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 14 Minds and Bodies #3 (Jackson) By David Kelsey.
Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis:
© Michael Lacewing Hume and Kant Michael Lacewing co.uk.
© Michael Lacewing Substance and Property Dualism Michael Lacewing
Consciousness Knowledge and Reality: Mind and Body, Lecture 4.
CTM 2. EXAM 2 Exam 1 Exam 2 Letter Grades Statistics Mean: 60 Median: 56 Modes: 51, 76.
© Michael Lacewing Kant on conceptual schemes Michael Lacewing osophy.co.uk.
A post-script to Stega Nona Meets Her Match and Something From Nothing.
Consciousness. 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.
Explaining Consciousness Joe Lau Philosophy HKU. Reading Lectures notes from James Pryor at Harvard :
 The value of certainty.  Foundationalists suppose that true beliefs held with certainty (indubitable) together with logical and linguistic analysis.
Property dualism Key Words Learning objective:
 You may not know it was a hint when you read it, but the more you read, the more you understand.
Implicature. I. Definition The term “Implicature” accounts for what a speaker can imply, suggest or mean, as distinct from what the speaker literally.
This week’s aims  To test your understanding of substance dualism through an initial assessment task  To explain and analyse the philosophical zombies.
Substance and Property Dualism
The zombie argument: responses
Introduction to Philosophy Lecture 14 Minds and Bodies #3 (Jackson)
The Problem of Consciousness
Michael Lacewing Hume and Kant Michael Lacewing © Michael Lacewing.
What is meant by the term property dualism? (3 marks)
My Dream Project By: Staci Mion.
On your whiteboard: What is innatism? Give two examples to support it
Property Dualism - Recap
In Defense of Physicalist Accounts of Consciousness
Presentation transcript:

What Mary Didn’t Know

Exam results

Grade Distribution

Statistics Mean: 66.95 Median: 69 Mode: 74

The knowledge argument

Mary Brilliant scientist. Locked in a room with nothing red-colored since birth. Has never seen her own blood or anything else that’s red. Knows everything about color science and brain science.

“Real Life” Mary There’s a real vision scientist who can’t see colors: Knut Nordby. Read his story here: http://consc.net/misc/achromat.html

The Knowledge Argument Mary has all the physical information concerning human color vision before her release. But there is some information about human color vision that she does not have before her release. Therefore, not all information is physical information.

Horgan’s Distinction ‘Physical information’ can mean one of two things: X is [explicit] physical information = X is information expressed in the language of physics. X is [ontological] physical information = X is information about something that is completely made out of physical things.

Example ‘This is water’ is ontological physical information, because water is completely made out of physical stuff. But ‘this is water’ is not explicit physical information, because physics talks about “hydrogen” and “oxygen,” not “water.”

The Explicit Knowledge Argument #1 Mary has all the explicit physical information concerning human color vision before her release. But there is some information about human color vision that she does not have before her release. Therefore, not all information is explicit physical information.

#1 Good argument, but who cares? We already know that not all information is explicit physical information (for example info about “water”).

The Explicit Knowledge Argument #2 Mary has all the explicit physical information concerning human color vision before her release. But there is some information about human color vision that she does not have before her release. Therefore, not all information is ontological physical information.

Bad argument!

Analogy Distinguish two kinds of information about grades: X is [English-name] grade information = X is information about grades expressed using students’ English names. X is [ontological] grade information = X is information about grades.

The Explicit Knowledge Argument #2 Michael has all the English-name grade information. But there is some grade information Michael does not have. Therefore, not all grade information is ontological grade information.

Bad Argument! This is a bad argument. It’s possible that I know everyone’s grades, even though I don’t know everyone’s grades if they are stated with students’ English names.

The Explicit Knowledge Argument #3 Mary has all the ontological physical information concerning human color vision before her release. But there is some information about human color vision that she does not have before her release. Therefore, not all information is ontological physical information.

The ability hypothesis

Three Types of Knowing I know Jason Stanley. I know that Jason Stanley is a philosopher at Yale University. I know how to tickle Jason Stanley.

Knowing How vs. Knowing That Most philosophers think that knowing how to do something is not the same as knowing that _____. Where you can fill in the ______ with anything.

Knowing How vs. Knowing That Knowing that P is “propositional knowledge.” Knowing how to A is “practical knowledge.” A difference in propositional knowledge reflects a difference in the facts. But a difference in practical knowledge only represents a difference in one’s own skills.

Knowing How vs. Knowing That

Lewis and the Ability Hypothesis “Knowing what it is like is the possession of abilities: abilities to recognize, abilities to imagine, abilities to predict one's behavior by imaginative experiments.” – David Lewis, 1983

The Ability Response Mary learns how to do something new. She does not learn any new proposition. So there’s no reason to think there are additional non-physical facts.

Ability to Imagine But does Mary really only gain an ability, like the ability to imagine something? Suppose Mary can’t imagine anything, she can only experience what happens and think about her actual experience. Can’t she still know what it’s like to see red, and that this is what George experiences when he sees red?

Ability to Recognize Many color-blind individuals don’t know that they’re color-blind. They can still recognize different colors using context cues. We still want to say that they do not know what it’s like to see red.

Phenomenal concepts

Modes of Presentation The same facts can be presented in different ways: John Woo made Hard Boiled. Wu Yu-Sheng made Hard Boiled. Sometimes we know a fact presented one way, but don’t know the same fact presented a different way.

New Proposition/ Old Fact A common response to the knowledge argument is to say that Mary learns a new proposition, but that this proposition is just a different presentation of a fact she already new before leaving the room.

Example For example, if I learn German, I learn a new way to represent the fact that snow is white (“Der schnee ist weis”), but I don’t learn a new fact (I already know that snow is white).

Phenomenal Concepts So the general response to the knowledge argument goes: Mary learns a new way to represent the fact that roses are red. She already knew that fact, but now she has a new “language” to represent it in: the language of phenomenal concepts.

The Language of Thought Fodor (1975) argues that learning a language requires already being able to represent what’s learned. Thus, there must be able to represent everything we can learn to say before we learn to say it. The “language” that we use before we learn language is called the language of thought.

LOT and Word Learning To learn English ‘cow’ (for English-as-a-first-language-speakers) requires: hypothesizing that ‘cow’ means COW testing that hypothesis against the linguistic evidence and having the hypothesis confirmed by the evidence.

LOT vs. The Knowledge Argument So here’s the picture: the mind has a particular way of representing redness – the LOT word “RED.” The only way that word shows up in your thoughts is if light of a certain wavelength stimulates your L-cones. What Mary learns is how to represent redness with RED.