What are some objections to the ability reply to the knowledge argument?
Perhaps: an ability to remem- ber or imagine certain sorts of experiences. Two problems: (i) she may lack imagination or memory, but still learn something; (ii) if she does acquire new abilities, this seems to be explained by her knowledge of what the experience is like.
Oct 4, 2018
What is Jackson’s knowledge argument?
Refutation of physicalism
Jackson argues that if Mary does learn something new upon experiencing color, then physicalism is false. Specifically, the knowledge argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical explanations of mental states.
What is the conclusion of the Knowledge argument?
The conclusion of the knowledge argument is not simply that some knowledge requires experience; it is that there is some specific kind of knowledge which requires a specific kind of experience, and that this cannot be obtained in another way. Mary’s knowledge of what red looks like is knowledge of this kind.
Does the knowledge argument succeed in refuting physicalism?
The knowledge argument does not appear to refute this view. If this view can reasonably be called a physicalist view, then there is at least one version of physicalism that the knowledge argument appears to leave unchallenged. However, it is unclear that this is a significant deficiency.
What is Descartes knowledge argument?
Descartes’s theory of knowledge is essentially based in skepticism. He argued that in order to understand the world, first a person has to completely suspend their judgements of the world around them. This is the impression that the world makes on their mind.
What is the knowledge argument in philosophy?
The knowledge argument aims to establish that conscious experience involves non-physical properties. It rests on the idea that someone who has complete physical knowledge about another conscious being might yet lack knowledge about how it feels to have the experiences of that being.
Sep 3, 2002
What does Jackson say about the relationship between his knowledge argument and Nagel’s bat argument?
According to Jackson, these arguments differ in two ways. First, he claims that his argument concerns knowledge of a general property of experience, what it’s like to see red, whereas Nagel’s argument concerns knowledge of a property specific to an individual; that is, what it’s like to be a (particular) bat.
What does Frank Jackson believe?
He focuses on sensations such as pain and the sensation of blue. Jackson claims that if physicalism is true, then knowing all of the physical facts would include knowing all of the psychological facts—because the psychological facts just are physical facts, if physicalism is true.
What Mary didn’t know Frank Jackson summary?
Jackson’s paper, “ What Mary Didn’t Know” , is about a scientist Mary, who learns all the physical facts within the world from inside an isolated black-and-white room through a black and white TV.
What is the point of Jackson’s thought experiment about the color challenged scientist?
There they create patterns of neural activity that corresponds to the millions of colors most humans can distinguish. Now imagine that one day Mary's black and white screen malfunctions. And an apple
What is the hard problem in philosophy?
The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject.
Which authors defended versions of the cosmological argument?
According to your text, which two authors defended versions of the cosmological argument? Thomas Aquinas and Richard Taylor.
What is wrong with the cosmological argument?
A flaw in the cosmological argument is in giving special exclusive status to a deity that would need no creator or origin outside of itself– a necessary being–without acknowledging that such status could be given to the basic stuff, physis, of the universe, its energy, that can take different forms..
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument?
Terms in this set (9)
- Strength: It’s an ‘a posteriori’ argument. …
- Strength: God is a simple explanation. …
- Strength: Infinite regress is unlikely. …
- Strength: It’s logical. …
- Weakness: Inconsistent notion of necessary being. …
- (Comeback) God is not bound by universal laws. …
- Weakness: …
What kind of argument is the cosmological argument?
A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.
What is the cosmological argument trying to prove?
cosmological argument, Form of argument used in natural theology to prove the existence of God.
What is the cosmological argument for dummies?
The cosmological argument is an attempt to prove the existence of God by the fact that things exist. It assumes that things must have a cause, and that the chain of causes can only end by a supernatural event.