3 ms·

Sorry, but I didn't take Mary's 'complete' knowledge of physics to mean that she also has insight into the workings of her own mind, still less that she can man

Sorry, but I didn't take Mary's 'complete' knowledge of physics to mean that she also has insight into the workings of her own mind, still less that she can manipulate it. Justy knowing all of physics is superhuman enough. And as it happens, I don't generally buy arguments premised on the mind being reducible to the brain.

tsimionescu 4y ago
It's part of the argument thoigh: > She knows all the physical facts about us and our environment, in a wide sense of 'physical' which includes everything in completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology (emp. mine), and all there is to know about the causal and relational facts consequent upon all this, including of course functional roles. If she knows all there is to know about neurophisiology, she obviously knows exactly how her own brain works. In the original assumption of physicalism (the one the argument ultimately wants to show is false), that also implies she knows everything about the mind. > And as it happens, I don't generally buy arguments premised on the mind being reducible to the brain. The whole point of this particular argument is to take that as an assumption, reach a contradiction, and conclude that the assumption is false. The Mary's Room argument is precisely an argument that the mind is separate from the brain. It's a bad argument (per some other comment, even it's creator no longer really thinks it's convincing), but I think you would agree with the conclusion.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > which includes everything in completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology "Completed", which I take to mean stuff that someone already understands, now. But nobody understands how changes at a neurophysiological level affect mental states and thoughts. At best, we can say that some mental states are correlated with some neurophys. phenomena. > she obviously knows exactly how her own brain works. Not if I have correctly understood what author meant by "completed". Nobody knows exactly how a brain works.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    I believe "completed" means precisely the opposite - current physical theories are incomplete, but Mary has access to the completed version. Otherwise, the whole argument would only prove that qualia are not part of currently understood physical theories, which not even the most convinced physicalist would contest I think.

tsimionescu 4y ago

It's part of the argument thoigh: > She knows all the physical facts about us and our environment, in a wide sense of 'physical' which includes everything in completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology (emp. mine), and all there is to know about the causal and relational facts consequent upon all this, including of course functional roles. If she knows all there is to know about neurophisiology, she obviously knows exactly how her own brain works. In the original assumption of physicalism (the one the argument ultimately wants to show is false), that also implies she knows everything about the mind. > And as it happens, I don't generally buy arguments premised on the mind being reducible to the brain. The whole point of this particular argument is to take that as an assumption, reach a contradiction, and conclude that the assumption is false. The Mary's Room argument is precisely an argument that the mind is separate from the brain. It's a bad argument (per some other comment, even it's creator no longer really thinks it's convincing), but I think you would agree with the conclusion.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> which includes everything in completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology "Completed", which I take to mean stuff that someone already understands, now. But nobody understands how changes at a neurophysiological level affect mental states and thoughts. At best, we can say that some mental states are correlated with some neurophys. phenomena. > she obviously knows exactly how her own brain works. Not if I have correctly understood what author meant by "completed". Nobody knows exactly how a brain works.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  I believe "completed" means precisely the opposite - current physical theories are incomplete, but Mary has access to the completed version. Otherwise, the whole argument would only prove that qualia are not part of currently understood physical theories, which not even the most convinced physicalist would contest I think.