Re: A troubling paradox...

"Patty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jim Balter wrote:
>
> > The point of the quote is the claim that *even then*, the blind
> > person would not know "what red is like".  It's meant as an
> > argument against physicalism.  See, e.g.,
> > http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/ka.html
> >
>
> It strikes me that factsAbout(x) is not the same thing as
> experienceOf(x) ...

You are correct Patty; before or as well as becoming an arguement against
physicalism, it ws used by those in the consciousness studies arenas (both
east (Perennial religions) and west (from German Idealists to current
western interpretations therof)), to show that only an identity realtionship
with some aspect of Universe grounded knowledge.  The identity relationship
being, of course, in the context of a being with consciousness - "conscious
experience" of *that*.

The blind man can never know what it is "like" to be sighted, even given all
the facts, descriptions, scientific principles, etc., that entail "seeing".


>and as every school girl knows that to
> read a book about how to ride a bike is quite another thing
> from learing to ride a bike.  In the case of Mary, she has
> all the factsAbout(seeing-red) ... we could even with a
> slight of hand give her
> factsAbout(experienceOf(seeing-red)); but she will not get
> experienceOf(seeing-red) unless we let her out of the room.
>
> But I fail to see how this is a legitimate argument against
> a suitably phrased physicalism.  A set of facts is a set of
> facts, a set of experiences is quite another thing.

The story *can* and has been used as an argument against physicalism as
well, as others have mentioned.

>
> Patty
>