Re: A troubling paradox...

"Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> > "Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>OmegaZero2003 wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Jim Balter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Patty wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>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) ... 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>At issue is not merely the experience of seeing red,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The blind_man argument exposes the experience of seeing red as the
> >
> > *primary*
> >
> >>>constituent of knowledge *about*.
> >>>
> >>>It is via identity with. All other knowledge *about* X is secondary;
> >
> > which
> >
> >>>is why the sighted person has difficulty getting the blind man to
> >
> > understand
> >
> >>>*fully* what seeing *is*.
> >>
> >>Your comments on this subject are quite naive (and insufferably
> >>arrogant).  I suggest reading
> >>http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/robomaryfin6.htm
> >>to get a better sense of what the thought experiment
> >>does and does not "expose".
> >
> >
> > Your comments on this subject are quite naive (and insufferably
arrogant).
>
> Actually they're not, as anyone who peruses the references I've
> provided, or knows anything on the subject, or simply reads
> and comprehends my words, realizes.

But of course, you do not research the reference I provided; that would
entail your understanding what a *reference* is!



>
> [snip]
>
> -- 
> <J Q B>
>