OC An Argument Against the "Mary's Room" Thought Experiment

In the thought experiment Mary's Room, it is argued that Mary gains new knowledge about the colour red when she leaves the room.

It seems to me, though, that she gains no knowledge about the colour red, and instead only knowledge about herself (ie. how does Mary's brain respond when it perceives the colour red).

And, of course, such knowledge could be obtained without access to the colour at all, simply by attaching electrodes to the nerves in the eye to stimulate the nerve cells would be sufficient.

Finally, consider an artificial intelligence in the same room with the same rules. Except that, unlike a human, this intelligence can simulate precisely the input to its visual system based on its understanding of phenomena. In the thought experiment, the understanding would be complete, and thus the simulation would be perfect. So, the artificial intelligence would have no new stimulation when leaving the room.

The only substantive thing the thought experiment seems to actually argue is that humans are incapable of achieving "understanding" through purely knowledge-based transfer. Though it does nothing to argue that that limitation is a universal constant instead of an accident of the evolution of the human brain.

MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

Why do you say that this is restriction of human mind? I think it is quite the opposite. You can learn about fear everything that can be learned through the books, and ON TOP of that, you can experience it. Thus, there is component that can not be learned through the books, it has to be experienced. And yes, this is property of human mind, or, as I said in the beginning, subjective experience IN ADDITION to objective description of the world possible to learn from the books.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I specify "human mind" because I think the space of all possible intelligences is potentially quite large, and I'm interested in understanding the universe through a more general lens than what we, as humans, are forced to use due to the nature of how our brains work.

I agree that, for humans, "subjective experience" is in addition to "objective description of the world". There is no possible way for a human to fully understand the world without subjective experience.

Where we differ, I think, is that you posit that "subjective experience" is thus not derivable from "objective description", which makes it epistemologically* different.

Instead, I say that through perfect simulation, "subjective experience" can be fully recreated from "objective description of the world", which means it is not "extra" knowledge.

The question of whether "subjective experience", simulated or otherwise, is a requirement for all intelligences to "understand" something in whatever manner that intelligence is considered to understand, is something of which I am not convinced. But I don't think anyone can currently answer that question.

  • I never get to use that word in everyday life, maybe I need new friends?
MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

I will go even further, by saying that most likely subjective experience is not required to understand most of the things in the world. The only place where it is required is to understand yourself, and by analogy the inner world of other similar creatures.

I do not accept your argument, however, that just because "subjective experience" can be fully recreated from "objective description of the world", then it is not an extra knowledge. For two reasons.

First, just because you can derive one thing from another, that does not negate that the first thing is extra knowledge. Biology can be completely derived from quantum mechanics. But I am sure that biology is an extra knowledge.

Second, you, as an intelligent being, can not recreate and experience the subjective experience unless you are already capable having it. For example, we can not have subjective experience of how bats perceive the world with echolocation. Even if you can simulate bat's brain, it is that simulated brain that will have the experience, not you. You will never know how a bat subjectively perceive a flying mosquito, few meters away from the bat, flying.

MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

First, I dislike the Mary's room experiment description. For the reason that qualia of color red is so nuanced, that it is difficult to understand if there is one or not. I would rather use different perception - fear. Suppose that Mary never felt fear. And so on.

Second, the Mary's room experiment is not that you can not know everything before entering that room, but it is against physicalism, that states that you can learn everything there is to know just absorbing information, like reading books. And that there is something extra to learn through experiencing things. Your example of attaching electrodes to the red nerve cells does not contradict this statement, since it creates experience of color red, and this is why you lean something new.

My final comment is that science (and physicalism to extend) deals with objective reality. And qualia by definition is subjective reality, unfalsifiable, and thus outside of what science is about (unless we can find something objective in qualia, which is common to all possible observers and can be tested by any observer through the use of an apparatus only).

So, yes, there is subjective reality, which, by the way, is not the most true description of the world.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

I don't think physicalism (or science) is at odds with either subjective reality, nor the notion of qualia (as far as experience being wholly separate from knowledge, for a human).

Given the following axioms:

  1. All experiences are mediated by the senses
  2. If senses are simulated perfectly, they are indistinguishable from reality
    It follows:
  3. Qualia is not a property of objects, but of the mind

There is nothing "extra" that you can learn by experiencing something, because you could "learn" the exact same thing by simulating your experience of that thing, which you can do with perfect information.

MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

How do you simulate fear, when you have never known it? If you have simulated a model of your brain on computer and excited fear in it, you still will not know how it feels to you. If you excite fear in yourself, then this is not simulation, but actual experience, and then you will know what fear is.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

If you excite fear in yourself, then this is not simulation, but actual experience, and then you will know what fear is.

I disagree. You can only learn what fear feels like through experience (simulated or otherwise). What fear feels like to you is not a property of fear, it's a property of yourself.

If I met you and liked you, or I met you and hated you, it would not change who you are. My qualia of you is independent of you, and so is not a property of you. Thus, it must be a property of me.

I don't argue against the notion that human minds require qualia to understand things. But I do argue that that restriction is due to the nature of the human mind, and not due to the nature of the things themselves.

MxM111,
MxM111 avatar

I disagree. You can only learn what fear feels like through experience (simulated or otherwise).

I do not know why you disagree. This is exactly what I am saying.

My qualia of you is independent of you

And so it is called subjective. Again, we are in agreement.

But I do argue that that restriction is due to the nature of the human mind, and not due to the nature of the things themselves.

Why are you saying that this is restriction? You can learn everything you can from the book, and on top of this you can experience it, subjectively.

and not due to the nature of the things themselves.

Of course not. The qualia is never about the thing that you observe, but about the observer. The qualia does not belong to the thing, but to the observer. But the whole argument of Mary's room is that there is something extra to learn, that can not be learned from the books. You can not learn from the book how you will experience fear, or experience color red. That's the point. Thus, there is something extra in the world (as far as you are a part of the world - which might be questionable) then there is no way you can learn everything about the world through just books, through physics. This is the criticism of physicalism.

Lenguador,
Lenguador avatar

You can not learn from the book how you will experience fear, or experience color red

I think this is our primary disagreement.

We both agree: "Humans cannot learn how they would experience fear through purely physical description".

You draw the conclusion that subjective experience must be an extra thing, not captured by physicalism.

I draw the conclusion that humans are defective, we lack the neurological equipment to translate objective description to subjective experience.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • philosophy
  • ngwrru68w68
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • kavyap
  • cubers
  • megavids
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • ethstaker
  • tacticalgear
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • cisconetworking
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •