3 ms·
> Having knowledge and actually doing it are trivially different things This is a circular argument. You are arguing that Mary does not know what it is like to
by pdonis 4y ago
> Having knowledge and actually doing it are trivially different things
This is a circular argument. You are arguing that Mary does not know what it is like to see red by assuming that she does not know what it is like to see red.
> if she exercises her knowledge by stimulating her optic nerves
Which, since she has complete knowledge of all physical facts, she can do. The thought experiment does not say she "reads about" color vision. It says she has complete knowledge of all physical facts. The article referenced here does not do a good job of describing Jackson's actual thought experiment, but Jackson's actual thought experiment is based on the (extremely strong and unrealistic) premise I have just stated. It has to be, because any weaker premise cannot possibly ground a conclusion that Mary learns something non-physical when she sees the apple. Just saying that Mary knows everything that can be learned by reading about things is not enough; there are many physical facts that cannot be learned by reading.
- the_af 4y agoIt's not circular reasoning: it's a rejection of the premise which I can easily dispute: knowing everything there is to know about sex without actually practicing it is not the same as having sex. If someone subjected a brain in a vat with electrical stimulation to make it believe it's having sex (with phantom body parts it doesn't actually possess), then that is indistinguishable from actual sex -- but note how the postulation of the actual Mary experiment steers clear of actually asserting this, and instead claims she "learns the physical properties" of seeing colors. I realize Jackson is a professor and I'm not, and that this is a well known thought experiment, but I deem it so obviously invalid -- or rather, based on false premises -- that it's not worth considering. Of course I'm basing my opinion on TFA, but reading Wikipedia's summary I see other philosophers have poked holes on this experiment and even agree with me the premises are false. P.S. defining "knowing everything there is to know" the same as "physically experiencing" is circular reasoning, and I definitely disagree with this premise.
- pdonis 4y ago> knowing everything there is to know about sex without actually practicing it is not the same as having sex. Your premise only seems plausible as you state it because you are not actually considering the implications of knowing everything there is to know about sex. But knowing everything there is to know about sex includes knowing what it is like to have sex. So the real premise you should be stating is that it is not possible to know everything there is to know about sex if you have not actually had sex. And, as you appear to realize, making the appropriate adjustment in how the premise of Jackson's Mary thought experiment is interpreted makes it obvious that the argument is invalid--and I agree that it is.
- the_af 4y agoAh, thanks for the explanation. Yes, reading this answer and also your more elaborate reply to another commenter, I think I agree.