Materialism

[davidsmith73]

UcE said:
Not easy, circular! We're trying to define subjective experience. Another definition, please.

~~ Paul

qualia

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty,



This is simply a question of definition of terms.

If you define subjective facts as UCE does, to be facts which exist only for an individual person, then as a Physicalist I would say such facts do not exist. I would claim that instead these facts are facts about physical brain states, and that the only thing "private" about them is that they are your brain states.

Yes, I am aware of that. That, however, is a different definition then I would prefer to use for subjective.

When a Physicalist talks about "subjective" facts, he is clearly not talking about facts that exist only for that person. He is simply referring to facts which are facts about a person's brain state. In this sense, subjective facts are just a type of objective fact.

Hence you are using the word incorrectly. A fact is either subjective or objective, not both. A physicalist needs to claim that subjective facts do not actually exist, we just have an illusion of subjective facts. We both agree on this point.

Whether you choose to still call them subjective, with the understanding that it has a different meaning, or choose to discard the word subjective entirely, is simply a question of semantics.

It is not just arbitrary, either. Those of us who come from scientific backgrounds are quite used to using the word "subjective" to refer to personal stuff, without any implication that these things are completely inaccessible, or that they do not exist objectively. In philosophical circles, maybe they use the term differently. All this means is that it is important to clearly define our terms.

Agreed

And of course, both of these definitions work fine with the statement "subjective means in your mind". After all, if the mind is a physical process in the brain, then this just means that subjective means "happening in your brain", which is exactly how physicalists use the term.

Dr. Stupid

No, subjective must be defined so that nothing can be both subjective and objective.

Objective means that any human can perceive the fact.
Subjective means that the fact is only perceived by one person, and in fact can not be perceived by anyone else.

We use subjective to mean the facts we perceive that others don't, because there are two uses of the word going on.

I would like to agree in this thread to use subjective as I defined it above in contrast with objective.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

...in other words you are going to reject any definition [of subjective experience] that leads to materialism being false.

Me? No, really, I'm just rejecting definitions that are circular.

~~ Paul

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Re: Re: Dammit

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
I don't know what happened to Stimpy and Paul.

Rusty can be pleased and every idealist here would have the proof they want doing a simple experiment wich really capture the esence of physicalism.

Yes, I do hope that one day when we discover more about the brain such an experiment would be possible. I hope I live to that day.

First you Rusty forget the Book about Red you claim is sufficent to experience Red according to physicalism. It is nonsense because the only physicalist requeriment is that a physical neural arrange is necessary and sufficent to experience Red . Not a book wich can or can't arrange the neurone matter in the way needed to experiment red.

Physicalism claims that everything about red can be reduced to the point where it can be perceived. So if it can be perceived then we can write it down. Everything was reduced, perceived, then written in the book.

So the physicalist experiment to demostrate physicalism goes like this:

You store the brain configu¡ration to experience red in a computer. Then you stimulate the PHYSICAL brain of the subject using ONLY the PHYSICAL information in the computer ans...voila!!! the subject should experiment RED if physicalism is true.

Now, go to google and see some actual experiments in this field with blind people or vision research centers like Caltech.

You did not follow my example.

Everything is reducable to a state where it can be perceived. We can write down what we perceive. We reduce everything about red to what we perceive and write down everything about red. Mary learns everything about red.

Mary see's red. Mary learns something new.

How could she learn something new if she already learned everything about red?

We did not continue the story about the 'brain augmenting' case. If we say that Mary's brain is augmented such that she believes she has seen red then we are going beyond what the Mary and the black/white room thought experiment does.

You can not force Mary to posses a false belief without doing something different then the though experiment we are discussing.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

UcE said:
Me? No, really, I'm just rejecting definitions that are circular.

~~ Paul

How is this:

Objective means that any human can perceive the fact.
Subjective means that the fact is only perceived by one person, and in fact can not be perceived by anyone else.

They are contrasting. Hence nothing can be both, it can only be one or the other or possibly "something else".

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Rusty said:

So you are saying that if Mary learned everything there is in a book that contains all the 'information' about the knowledge of seeing red she still does not have the memory, correct?

"Information about the knowledge"? Reread Stimpy's definitions of information and knowledge.

But EVERYTHING about her brain being altered can be reduced to the point where it can be perceived. This means that everything about the experience, the knowledge, the way the brain is arranged, everything.

Rusty, define perceive. You're tossing around the term without understanding it. Perceiving the description of something is not the same as perceiving that thing.

I agree totally with that last sentance. But the change in her brain is reduced in the third book. Everything about that change is reduced to a perceivable state and Mary learns it. If there is something that Mary cannot learn then how does she learn it when she see's red?

By activating portions of her brain that were not involved in the book learning.

You can reduce everything about the dog into information and put all that information in the book. If there is any part of the dog that can not be reduced then we must reject physicalism.

So you're saying that because I cannot open the book and out popeth a dog, physicalism is rejected?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

DavidSmith said:

qualia

Define qualia.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Rusty said:

Objective means that any human can perceive the fact.
Subjective means that the fact is only perceived by one person, and in fact can not be perceived by anyone else.

Define perceive. And don't forget that we're ultimately trying to define subjective experience.

~~ Paul

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty said:
"Information about the knowledge"? Reread Stimpy's definitions of information and knowledge.

Paul, Stimpy said knowledge is a physical state of the brain.

I defined information as the things we perceive.

Physiclaism claims we can reduce everything (including the physical state of the brain) to somethign we can perceive. Therefore we can have information about knowledge.

Rusty, define perceive. You're tossing around the term without understanding it. Perceiving the description of something is not the same as perceiving that thing.

Unless you are a physicalist. Paul, you are not a physicalist. Physicalism states that everything must be reducable to a state where it can be perceived. So if we have reduced everything about red to the state where it can be perceived then we perceive all of that reduced state then we have perceived everything about red (according to physicalism).

You keep defending something that is not physicalism. I am no longer going to argue with you because you are not a physicalist. You just don't realize it.

By activating portions of her brain that were not involved in the book learning.


So you're saying that because I cannot open the book and out popeth a dog, physicalism is rejected?

~~ Paul

Ha ha.

I am saying this:

We can write down what we perceive.

Everything can be perceived. (physicalism)

We can write down everything.

 

[BillyTK]

How is this:

Objective means that any human can perceive the fact.
Subjective means that the fact is only perceived by one person, and in fact can not be perceived by anyone else.

They are contrasting. Hence nothing can be both, it can only be one or the other or possibly "something else".

Apologies if this has already been addressed...

How about that the perception of red has one end in the physical world (the photons which cause the sensation of red) and one end in the mental world (the understanding of the perception of the sensation). The physical world component is an objective fact (the photons are unchanged) but the mental world component is subjective according to our subjective understandings of red.

Not that I'm making any claims for a distinction between mental and physical worlds. And come to think of it, we don't actually see "red" anyway; we see everything *but* red... Everything you see is not?

Oh dear. I think I need to lie down for a while.

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Rusty said:
Define perceive. And don't forget that we're ultimately trying to define subjective experience.

~~ Paul

Ultimately I am not trying to define subjective experience. Ultimately I am trying to force a modification of physicalism so that the "agent" can exist in such a world. I am also enjoying an intelligent discussion about the veracity of physicalism and learning quite a bit.

I do not want to get into a discussion about exactly what "perceive" means. Perhaps you can start a new thread about what is perceivable.

Here it appears to be being used to mean "transferable to knowledge".

I can perceive a red car, hence I have transfered the existence of the red car to knowledge of a red car.

I cannot perceive an invisible, ethereal dragon in my garage, hence I cannot transfer the existence of the invisible, ethereal dragon into knowledge.

 

[BillHoyt]

BillHoyt has arrived in this thread.

That is my ultimate signal to leave it.

This thread is a joke, anyway. It isn't philosophy. It is psychotherapy for people who are hopelessly brainwashed.

UcE,

I've been here all along, sir. I am truly sorry you don't see the inherent contradiction in attempting to convince others that reality is subjective. It smacks strongly of the postmodernist conceit that there is no truth.

Your logical muddle is so transparent. If mind is all subjective, then there is no hope of reliably transferring that knowledge to another's mind, is there? You don't how it works. How do you reach understanding? How do you reach agreement? The attempt itself signals a refutation of the assertion.

That now leaves you with the wimpier assertion that most of mind or much of mind or some of mind is subjective. Now you've left yourself a portal through which to attempt to communicate with an other. But now you've also allowed in objective means of determining further truth, and you are back on scientific turf and scientific rules of evidence.

But, of course, I'm "brainwashed." A curious choice of metaphors given you don't think the brain is responsible for the mind. To keep consistent in your views, UcE, I would think you'd need to write "mindwashed." Of course, to keep even more consistent, you need to stop posting. Or change your assertions.

Cheers,

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Apologies if this has already been addressed...

How about that the perception of red has one end in the physical world (the photons which cause the sensation of red) and one end in the mental world (the understanding of the perception of the sensation). The physical world component is an objective fact (the photons are unchanged) but the mental world component is subjective according to our subjective understandings of red.

Not that I'm making any claims for a distinction between mental and physical worlds. And come to think of it, we don't actually see "red" anyway; we see everything *but* red... Everything you see is not?

Oh dear. I think I need to lie down for a while.

That would come under dualism. Physicalism can not co-exist with dualism so....

 

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

UcE,

I've been here all along, sir. I am truly sorry you don't see the inherent contradiction in attempting to convince others that reality is subjective. It smacks strongly of the postmodernist conceit that there is no truth.

Your logical muddle is so transparent. If mind is all subjective, then there is no hope of reliably transferring that knowledge to another's mind, is there? You don't how it works. How do you reach understanding? How do you reach agreement? The attempt itself signals a refutation of the assertion.

That now leaves you with the wimpier assertion that most of mind or much of mind or some of mind is subjective. Now you've left yourself a portal through which to attempt to communicate with an other. But now you've also allowed in objective means of determining further truth, and you are back on scientific turf and scientific rules of evidence.

But, of course, I'm "brainwashed." A curious choice of metaphors given you don't think the brain is responsible for the mind. To keep consistent in your views, UcE, I would think you'd need to write "mindwashed." Of course, to keep even more consistent, you need to stop posting. Or change your assertions.

Cheers,

You don't understand UE's assertions. I don't either but at least I've read his posts.

He believes that there is only one conscoiusness, so it doesn't need to communicate with anything else or reach any agreements.

Perhaps you can start at the begining of this massive thread and by the time you've reached here you will have a deep understanding of UE's assertion. Then, perhaps, you can try to offer a compelling refutation.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Rusty,

Then replace everything I said about knowledge with the word information. Everything must be reducable to the point where any human can perceive it. This renders everything into information

Surely you are not going to assert that Physicalism claims that everything is information? That the description is the reality?

That position is easily refuted, and you don't need Mary to do it. You are attacking a strawman here. Physicalism only claims that everything can be mathematically described in terms of our perceptions.

So you are saying that if Mary learned everything there is in a book that contains all the 'information' about the knowledge of seeing red she still does not have the memory, correct?

Yes.

But the memory is part of the knowledge of seeing red, hence it was reduced and included in the book.

Wrong. The memory was not included in the book. A description of the memory was included in the book. You can no more include the memory in the book than you could include Mary's brain in the book. The book only contains descriptions.

Mary learned everything in that book. So Mary learned everything there is about the memory unless we assume that there is something that can not be reduced and put in the book. If we do that we no longer have physicalism.

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a thing, and the description of that thing? Do you acknowledge that Physicalism does not claim that things are equivalent their descriptions? If you do not acknowledge these two points, then we have nothing to discuss.

Sure, but all the book contains is a description of the physical state her brain would have if she possessed that knowledge. Reading that description is not going to alter her brain in such a way for her to have that knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But EVERYTHING about her brain being altered can be reduced to the point where it can be perceived. This means that everything about the experience, the knowledge, the way the brain is arranged, everything. So she may not have seen red yet (duh) but she knows everything that can be reduced to a perceivable state. If she knows everything that can be reduced about red, seeing red, knowing red, knowing that she knows red, and onwards, then how can she still learn something new?

I have already answered this question. All you are doing is phrasing it in a counter-intuitive way, so that it sounds contradictory.

It is really simple. Mary cannot learn everything there is to know about seeing red by reading a book. This fact does not contradict Physicalism, because Physicalism in no way claims that she should be able to. Physicalism only claims that a complete description of the process of seeing red should be possible. It in no way implies that knowing that description is equivalent to knowing what it is like to see red.

You can take it to as many levels of abstraction as you want. This does not change the fundamental issue, which is that knowledge is a physical state of the brain, and all that can be written in the book is a description of that physical state. Physicalism only requires that it should be possible to construct a description of the physical state. It in no way requires that knowing that description will cause your brain to change to match that description.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree totally with that last sentance. But the change in her brain is reduced in the third book.

You keep using the word "reduced" as though it somehow implied that the brain state is magically transformed into information, and stored in the book. All it means is that the change in her brain is described in the third book.

Everything about that change is reduced to a perceivable state and Mary learns it. If there is something that Mary cannot learn then how does she learn it when she see's red?

She can learn it. She just can't learn it by reading a book. The book only contains a description of the brain state. For her to learn it, she must acquire that brain state. Physicalism only requires that we be able to describe the brain state. It does not require that we be able to give somebody that brain state.

Saying that it can be reduced to the physical facts does not mean that the physical facts are all there is. Reducing something to physical facts just means you have a physical description of it. It does not mean that it is the description. Expecting a description of knowledge to transform into actual knowledge is no different than expecting a description of a toaster to transform into a real toaster.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Emphasis added by me)

I used the word physical fact because Paul began to use it. I've tried to avoid using it in response to you because we haven't been using it.

When I say reducing it to a physical fact all I mean is reducing it to the point where someone can perceive it. That reduction is what I am referring to.

So physicalism most certainly claims that "that is all there is".

Do you understand that for me to perceive Mary's knowledge of what it is like to see red is not the same as me knowing what it is like when Mary sees red?

In the first case, I am able to perceive her brain state. The "reduction" that you are talking about is nothing more than a description of her knowledge of what it is like to see red in terms of that brain state.

In the second case, I would have to actually have that brain state. This is impossible.

You are attributing things to Physicalism that it does not say, because you are misunderstanding what it means to say that everything is reducible to a state where I can perceive it. This only means that I can, in principle, describe everything in terms of my perceptions.

The problem is that you are thinking of reducing knowledge to information, and then converting that information back to knowledge. Nothing physical can be reduced to information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is the exact claim that physicalism is making. If everything can be reduced to something that any human can perceive then we are reducing things to information. Anything we can perceive is information, and if everything can be perceived then everything can be reduced to information. I'm still not even clear on how you are differentiating knowledge and information.

This is not what any person who calls himself a physicalist is claiming. You are attacking a nonsensical strawman. No physicalist would claim that you can transform a dog into perceivable information. They would only claim that you can provide a description of the dog in terms of perceptions.

You claim that knowledge is a physical state of the brain.

So what is information if it is not the things we perceive?

The things that we perceive objectively exist. We describe them in terms of our perceptions. Those descriptions are information. The things being described are not. Is that clear enough?

When we say that something is reducible to the physical facts, we just mean that it can be described in terms of physical facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why did you object when I made the claim that everything can be reduced to a physical fact?

I only objected when you made it clear that by "reduced to a physical fact" you meant something more than just "described in terms of physical facts".

Those facts are information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So everything can be reduced to information. Why did you object?

I object to your use of the word "reduced". You are clearly using it to mean something different than what physicalists mean by it.

The physical thing being described is not information. knowledge is not just information. Reading information describing knowledge is not going to give somebody that knowledge. A physical process is necessary to alter to brain so that it has the knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, so ultimately everything about this peanut can be reduced to information. But now you are claiming that the peanut is more then information. But everything can be reduced, so whatever the "more" part is we just need to reduce that part as well. Then we've reduced the peanut to information. There is still a peanut, we have just reduced it to a whole bunch of perceivable facts (information).

This is clearly going nowhere. From now on, I am not going to use the word "reduced". It is ambiguous and unclear. I hereby deny that Physicalism claims that anything can be reduced to physical facts, in the sense that you are using the term.

Physicalism only claims that everything can be described in terms of our perceptions. It does not claim that objects can be transformed into perceptions, or that objects are perceptions, or that objects are information.

For abstract knowledge (the memory of information), a mechanism is already in place to turn the information into knowledge. For empirical knowledge (the memory of an experience), no such mechanism is in place. This has nothing to do with philosophy. It is simply a statement about how the brain works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our brain turns information into knowledge. Great.
But experience has no 'brain mechanism' to turn it into knowledge.

No. Our brains can turn information into abstract knowledge. It cannot turn information into empirical knowledge.

This illustrates the source of our disagreement. A book cannot contain knowledge. It only contains information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claimed our brains can turn information into this knowledge.

Only into abstract knowledge.

So the book contains information, Mary learns it, thereby turning it into knowledge.

Into abstract knowledge. She only has the abstract knowledge. The only (natural) way for her to get the empirical knowledge is to actually see red. In principle, it may be possible to artificially give her this empirical knowledge, but reading a book isn't going to do it.

Those facts are not all there is. The facts are not the neural connections. They are a description of the neural connections. The neural connections are not in the book, only a description of them is. Reading the book will not give Mary those neural connections. It will only give her a description of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything about the neural connections is reduced and put in the book. EVERYTHING. A description and everything else.

Wrong. Physicalism does not claim that anything more than the description can be put into the book.

Mary learns everything in the book. Mary learns everything there is that is these neural connections. If there is some part of these neural connections that cannot be reduced to information then we must discard physicalism.

You are not using the word "reduced" the way it is used in the definition of Physicalism. You are attacking a strawman.

Where on Earth did you get the idea that Physicalism claims that physical reality is made of facts? This is absurd!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You agreed with me earlier in this post. Now you disagree.

I never agreed with that. I just foolishly assumed that when you gave the definition for physicalism, you actually understood that was meant by it. I cannot imagine how anybody could seriously maintain that Physicalism claims what you say it is claiming. Do you really think that Physicalists are that stupid?

I can't put a dog into a book, why should I be able to put a brain state in a book?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can reduce everything about the dog into information and put all that information in the book. If there is any part of the dog that can not be reduced then we must reject physicalism.

Is the information in that book a dog? Do you think that is what Physicalism implies?

No, subjective must be defined so that nothing can be both subjective and objective.

Why? Are you not aware that the word "subjective" is used in both Psychology and Neurobiology the way I defined it, all the time? Who decided that the dualists should be the final arbiters on what constitutes proper usage of the English language?

Objective means that any human can perceive the fact.
Subjective means that the fact is only perceived by one person, and in fact can not be perceived by anyone else.

Both of those words mean only what they are defined to mean. Not everybody defines them the way you do.

We use subjective to mean the facts we perceive that others don't, because there are two uses of the word going on.

You use it that way. Not everybody does.

I would like to agree in this thread to use subjective as I defined it above in contrast with objective.

Fine with me. Nothing is subjective. Subjective facts do not exist. This does not change the fact that our only source of information is our experiences.

I'll tell you what, just for clarity, I will use the term pseudo-subjective when referring to things which exist as processes in the brain.


Just to reiterate. I claim that everything can be described in terms of our observations. I call this claim Physicalism. you can assert that physicalism claims that everything can be transformed into information. I agree with you that such a claim is nonsensical. What I don't understand is why you would assert that this is what physicalism claims?

It seems awfully conceited for you (who are not a physicalist) to be deciding what Physicalism means, and to be telling other people that they are not physicalists because they don't believe what you say they should.

Did it ever, even once, occur to you that maybe you have misunderstood the definition of Physicalism? That maybe the physicalists who wrote down that definition meant something different by it than what you originally thought?

Did it ever occur to you, when you realized that what you thought it meant was incoherent, to ask the physicalists to clarify what they meant, rather than just assuming that they did mean something incoherent?

Dr. Stupid

 

[BillyTK]

That would come under dualism. Physicalism can not co-exist with dualism so....

In physicalism, physical things are tangible, ie they are physical in their existence or affect on the physical world (Stimpy help me if I got that wrong). So the "mental" world is physical, not dualistic.

Not that I'm saying physicalism is correct and dualism is false; or vice versa... Everytime I think I've got it either way I realise I don't, so I'm not quite willing to commit to either position yet...

 

[BillHoyt]

You don't understand UE's assertions. I don't either but at least I've read his posts.

He believes that there is only one conscoiusness, so it doesn't need to communicate with anything else or reach any agreements.

Perhaps you can start at the begining of this massive thread and by the time you've reached here you will have a deep understanding of UE's assertion. Then, perhaps, you can try to offer a compelling refutation.

Read what I wrote sir. Don't presume what I have and have not read.

Cheers,

 

[davidsmith73]

David: the process we call science would be a method for describing relationships between different qualia that have a stable manifestation. The process of eliminating subjective bias and constructing descriptions of underlying mathematical principles would not have to change at all.

Stimpy: They would be rendered meaningless. All of the methods for controlling for subjective bias are logically based on the assumption that reality is objective.

You are arguing the inconsistencies of my case from your perspective. If you do this, then of course there are going to be problems. You have to step out of your idea of a separate objective reality for a moment.

The various methods for controlling for subjective bias used by scientists for the last couple of hundred years have been followed through carrying the assumption of objective reality. However, my point is that they may not need to use this assumption. Just because it has been done one particular way in the past doesn't mean that no other way can be found.

Subjective and objective are certainly not meaningless descriptions under my view. As descriptions, they are relationships between qualia. The stable relationships we derive mathematical relationships from. This process is science.

Sure, a solipsist can go through the motions of the scientific process, and it will still work, but if you do this, then science is no longer a logical framework for understanding the world. It is simply a heuristic method for which you have no logical reason for believing should be reliable.

No. It is reliable in the sense that it will provide predictions about my observations (qualia) under certain conditions (also qualia).

I make some observations (qualia) and construct a mathematical description. I get F=ma. My description (qualia) is reliable in the sense that it will provide predictions about how the qualia it refers to can be described further, i.e, under different conditions.

As I have said before, this essentially amounts to saying "the assumptions of the scientific method are really false, but reality behaves exactly as though they were true". This is pure metaphysical nonsense. If reality behaves exactly as though the assumptions of the scientific method were true, then in what meaningful sense are they not true? And if it does not, then clearly science is not going to work!

Your observations do not behave exactly as though assumptions of objective reality were true. This is the meaningful sense in that mathematical relationships are not true knowledge about something other than their own existence (qualia). You have not demonstrated at all how science is not going to work under my philosophy. You are just objecting to the meaning of the mathematical descriptions. I thought there was no room for meaning in materialism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Stimp,

So not all knowledge is information. In addition to all possible (physical) information, we need to have particular brain states to know what phenomenological redness is (redness as experienced). Presumably this would apply not only to the experience of redness but to absolutely all qualia.

But this then implies the redness quale, and all other qualia, is within the brain state. It cannot exist independently of your brain state, otherwise the totality of physical information regarding the world would include it; which it doesn't otherwise Mary wouldn't learn anything new in first experiencing red. And remember, the external world in abstraction from any brain states is purely informational (All physical facts = all information from third person perspective + knowledge only existing from the perspective of brain states)

But if all our qualia are not constitutive of the external world this means that all our perceptual experiences are a lie. It also seems to be idealism you are advocating (albeit not subjective idealism) rather than any sort of materialism. What say you to this?

 

[ChuckieR]

As there appears to be quite a few people who don't understand the Mary problem I have a link (in ppt format). In order to facilitate your understanding I would suggest you crank up the volume.

http://www.hku.hk/philodep/courses/max/phil2022/2022knowagr.ppt

This is a good link, and it seems to be a clear presentation of the argument. When I look at it, this is pretty much what I get out of it:

• Physicalism assumes that any physiological process can be controlled just by reading and thinking about it.
• Mary, who is raised from birth in a colorless room, will be able to distinguish between different colors when she leaves the room because she read about how people process colors.
• Therefore, materialism is false.

So we have one demonstratably false statement (see my example above about head rotations and eye movements), one highly suspicious statement (Mary will likely not have the proper brain wiring to distinguish between different colors, since she was not exposed to color during her critical early development period), and a nonsequitur.

Seeing red is not something we think about. It is not something we have direct control over. It is not something we choose to do. Seeing red is a reflex. We don't think of it that way because there is no visibly twitching muscle. If you look at a red object, can you force yourself to see it as blue? No? Then seeing red is a reflex.

The eye rotating opposite the head is a reflex. We have a very thorough understanding of how and why the eye rotates opposite the head. The process can be completely described in engineering terms. There are lots of scientific papers written about it (do a Google or PubMed search on "vestibulo ocular reflex" if you are curious). You can read them all and become a world expert on how the eye moves, which neurons are involved, etc. Yet you will not be able to modify the way your eyes move unless you go through some adaptation process. This is because the areas of the brain that perform higher level congnitive thinking do not have direct access to (i.e., cannot necessarily directly modify) the areas of the brain that control lower level stimulus processing and muscle control.

We don't discuss much the "experience" of having your eyes move automatically when you move your head. It just happens. Yet we go on endlessly discussing the "experience" of being able to distinguish between different colors. Yes, it is a more complex process, but not a completely mysterious one.

If I have time later, I'll try to dig up some vision psychology references that show that our "perception" (experience) of color is not as infallible as most people assume. It is probably more complex than most people realize (meaning there are many separate processes going on simultaneously that we are not aware of that allow us to differentiate between colors), and at the same time, there is probably not as much to it as most people think (i.e., that there is something going on that can never be explained).

Listen, I'm not an expert on the Knowledge Argument. Maybe there are some interesting arguments relating to it. But can't we all just agree that this particular example is a poor demonstration of why materialism is false?