If we’re agreed about the nature of Mary’s Room, great.
I decline to get into a discussion of how thought experiments are supposed to work, but I certainly agree with you that they aren’t supposed to be mathematical proofs.
I also decline to get into yet another discussion about the nature of conscious experience.
If we’re agreed about the nature of Mary’s Room, great.
Agreed on what about Mary’s room? I don’t agree that there a “right” and “wrong” intuitions about it, and I am not a fan of “M’s R is bad because all thought experiments are bad”.
Agreed that Mary’s Room doesn’t demonstrate that information that is not in-principle understandable by the methods of physical science but is ordinarily extracted by particular cognitive systems exists; that it’s solely intended as an intuition pump, as you say.
I certainly don’t believe that all thought experiments are bad, but again, I decline to get into a discussion of how thought experiments are supposed to work.
I’m surprised by your patient discussion with Peterdjones. My experience was that he is impossible to get through to, so I gave up a long time ago. Have you had any success?
I’m not quite sure what success looks like. Mostly, I’ve been trying to clarify my initial point about Mary’s Room, which we may have made minor progress on.
If we’re agreed about the nature of Mary’s Room, great.
I decline to get into a discussion of how thought experiments are supposed to work, but I certainly agree with you that they aren’t supposed to be mathematical proofs.
I also decline to get into yet another discussion about the nature of conscious experience.
Agreed on what about Mary’s room? I don’t agree that there a “right” and “wrong” intuitions about it, and I am not a fan of “M’s R is bad because all thought experiments are bad”.
Agreed that Mary’s Room doesn’t demonstrate that information that is not in-principle understandable by the methods of physical science but is ordinarily extracted by particular cognitive systems exists; that it’s solely intended as an intuition pump, as you say.
I certainly don’t believe that all thought experiments are bad, but again, I decline to get into a discussion of how thought experiments are supposed to work.
I’m surprised by your patient discussion with Peterdjones. My experience was that he is impossible to get through to, so I gave up a long time ago. Have you had any success?
I’m not quite sure what success looks like.
Mostly, I’ve been trying to clarify my initial point about Mary’s Room, which we may have made minor progress on.
You mean I remained unconvinced by your claim that reality isn’t real?
Its “nature”.
Mary’s Room is:
A thought experiment.
Supposed to be an intuition pump.
Not a formal proof of anything.
Possible conditional extension:
Of usefulness dependent upon the relevance of its premises, the things it seeks to make you think about, and the reliability of human intuition.