Chapter 2
1
embodiment
mind-body problem
philosophy of mind
thought experiment
intuition pump
mereological fallacy
qualia/quale
substance dualism/Cartesian dualism
res extensa
res cogitans
pineal gland
In short
Does saying “My brain feels pain” make sense?
What about “the brain recognizes words”?
Paul Nunez will have much more to say about the issues of parts/wholes and what is top/bottom
monism
dualism
idealism
materialism/physicalism
determinism
parallelism
occasionalism
dendron
psychon
property dualism
emergentism or emergence
knowledge argument
inverted spectrum
argument by analogy (other minds)
congenital analgesia
dissociation
p-zombie
epiphenomenalism
conceivability
nociceptor
nociceptive pain
A-fibres
C-fibres
gate control theory
endorphins
1. How does the ‘Mary’ color thought experiment make us rethink the idea that all knowledge comes from physical facts? Do you think science alone can fully explain consciousness or does Mary’s experience suggest there’s something more going on?
2. Why do you think Mary’s first experience of seeing color is such a big deal for understanding consciousness? What’s the difference between knowing something in theory and actually experiencing it? Can you argue that although Mary spent her life studying colors, she didn’t know everything there was to know about color?
3. How does the ’Mary” color thought experiment highlight the difficulty in explaining qualia (subjective experiences) using only physical factors?
4. If Mary had devoted her life to studying consciousness, do you think she would have a different understanding of consciousness?
(Explaining implicit “knowledge” that comes directly from experience.)
Argument | Supports Dualism | Supports Monism |
---|---|---|
The “Mary” Colour Experiment | If Mary learns something new upon seeing color, it suggests that subjective experience (qualia) is not fully captured by physical explanations. | If Mary doesn’t learn anything new, it suggests that complete physical knowledge is sufficient to account for subjective experiences. |
Dennett’s Counterargument | N/A | Dennett argues that Mary would not be surprised, suggesting that subjective experiences can be fully understood through physical properties. |
Knowledge by Description vs Knowledge by Acquaintance | N/A | Churchland uses Bertrand Russell’s distinction to argue that while Mary might gain a new form of knowledge (by acquaintance), this doesn’t necessarily introduce new facts beyond physical explanations. |
Experience as Part of Knowledge | Some argue that Mary couldn’t possibly know everything about the world without experiential knowledge, which could be seen as a point against materialist monism. | N/A |
The Hard Problem of Consciousness | The inability of materialist monism to solve the “hard problem” (how physical matter gives rise to subjective experience) can be seen as a point in favor of dualism. | Some argue that the “hard problem” might be an artifact of our current understanding and could be solved within a monist framework. |
Argument | Supports Dualism | Supports Monism |
---|---|---|
Inverted Spectrum Argument | The idea that people could experience colors differently (e.g., your red is my green) and that this is undetectable suggests that subjective experiences (qualia) are not fully captured by physical explanations. | If it’s possible to detect inversion behaviorally by asking people to make judgments about small differences in colors, then the physicalist view that all experiences can be explained physically is supported. |
Hofstadter’s Critique | N/A | Hofstadter argues that the inverted spectrum argument is incoherent and that experiences are not detached from the physical brain or the world. This supports a monist view. |
Asymmetries in Color Space | N/A | The existence of asymmetries in color space could make it impossible to find an inversion that is behaviorally undetectable, supporting the idea that experiences can be fully explained physically. |
Neuroscience of Vision | The argument that neuroscience can’t tell us what we feel when we see red could be seen as a point in favor of dualism. | If neuroscience can eventually explain what we feel when we see colors, this would support monism. |
Relation to Other Colors | The idea that something is left over about the “redness of red” and the “greenness of green” that isn’t captured by their relation to other colors could be seen as a point in favor of dualism. | If the experience of colors can be fully described in terms of their relations to other colors and their positions in color space, this would support monism. |
Philosophical zombies
Is consciousness essential?
Being conceivable
Topic/Concept/Thought Experiment | Dualism | Monism |
---|---|---|
Substance Dualism | Proposes that mind and matter are fundamentally different substances. Fits well with intuitive experiences and beliefs about the soul. | N/A |
Problems with Substance Dualism | Faces the issue of how mind and matter interact; also, mental material is not accessible through physical or scientific methods. | N/A |
Parallelism and Occasionalism | Attempts to explain the interaction between mind and matter through divine intervention. | N/A |
Property Dualism | Introduces the concept that there is one substance but two kinds of properties: physical and mental. | N/A |
Emergentism | N/A | A form of property dualism; mental properties emerge when matter is organized in certain complex ways. |
Idealism | N/A | Proposes that the world is fundamentally mental; material objects exist only in the mind. |
Materialism/Physicalism | N/A | Proposes that only physical matter exists, governed by the laws of physics. |
Neutral Monism | N/A | Suggests that mind and matter are different aspects of a single substance. |
The “Mary” Colour Experiment | Supports the idea that subjective experience (qualia) cannot be fully explained by physical properties alone. | Challenges materialism by suggesting that complete physical knowledge is insufficient to account for subjective experience. |
Dennett’s Counterargument | N/A | Argues that complete knowledge would indeed prepare Mary for the experience of color, thus no “hard problem” exists. |
Churchland’s Argument | N/A | Suggests that experience offers a different kind of knowledge (“knowledge-by-acquaintance”) but doesn’t necessarily introduce new facts. |
reductive materialism
mind–brain identity theory
type identity theory
multiple realisability
eliminative materialism
folk psychology
Reductive materialism
Eliminative materialism
functionalism
substrate independence
neuroprothesis
China brain
syntax
semantics
computation
strong AI
Chinese room
systems reply
Many important things bump into the same problem.
dancing qualia
organisational invariance
mysterianism
cognitive closure
non-reductive materialism
private knowledge
robot
ego theory
mind-body problem
philosophy of mind
thought experiment
intuition pump
Swampman
mind
brain
mereological fallacy
qualia/quale
substance dualism/Cartesian dualism
res extensa
res cogitans
pineal gland
parallelism
occasionalism
dendron
psychon
property dualism
emergentism or emergence
monism
dualism
idealism
materialism/physicalism
determinism
knowledge argument
knowledge argument
[inverted spectrum]{.tip data-tip=” a thought experiment, whereby individuals ‘see’ different colors; for example, when I have a sensation of red, you have a sensation of blue. How could we ever know?” data-pos=“right”}
nociceptor
nociceptive pain
A-fibres
C-fibres
gate control theory
endorphins
argument by analogy (other minds)
congenital analgesia
dissociation
p-zombie
epiphenomenalism
conceivability
reductive materialism
mind–brain identity theory
type identity theory
multiple realisability
[eliminative materialism]{.tip data-tip=” a materialist account of the mind body problem that says our everyday common sense “folk psychology” view of the world is wrong” data-pos=“right”}
folk psychology
functionalism
substrate independence
neuroprothesis
China brain
syntax
semantics
computation
strong AI
Chinese room
systems reply
dancing qualia
organisational invariance
mysterianism
cognitive closure
non-reductive materialism
private knowledge
robot
ego theory