Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism

I would like to begin this paper by addressing what question I hope to answer through the entirety of this paper: is the mind physical? As simple as this question may seem to be, there still, to this day, is not a definite answer. There are, mostly, two approaches to answering this problem, through dualism or physicalism. The dualist, for the purposes of this paper, simply believes that the mind and the body are not equal and therefore, they are not one in the same. The physicalist, however, would come back to say that there are no such things as non-physical objects and therefore, they would conclude that the body and the mind are both physical. After weighing on both sides of this argument, I am going to defend the physicalist ideas and

He presents Mary, a scientist who focusses on colour processing in the brain, whilst having never left a black and white room, or experienced colour. Jackson’s argument rests on the premise that upon seeing colour she will learn something new, and given that she knew everything there was to know about the physical world, there must be epiphenomenal qualia which physicalism fails to explain.

However, Mary just learned something new. This new knowledge is not explainable in physical terms; it is something that must be experienced, and therefore Jackson creates an argument against the supposed truth of physicalism.

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Lastly, I’lol be discussing Churchland 's interpretation of Frank Jackson’s Argument: Knowing our sensations. Churchland explains Jacksons argument as “showing the differences between knowing our states via introspection and knowing via non-introspective means are of such nature as to constitute grounds for denying the reducibility of psychology to neuroscience” (Churchland, 4). I 'll be summarizing Churchland 's summary of Jacksons constructed argument. A neuroscientist (Mary) who lives her entire life seeing no colors but

she is being accused of witchcraft. Mary has come to her senses to portray the truth, “I

Mary is wearing a large, dark blue robe that rests upon the floor as she kneels. A portion of it is suspended onto the stand from which she reads a book. The book’s pages are opened in an unrealistic manner, with a few pages seemingly stuck in one position. What little of her figure that is visible is oddly proportioned, with a plump

Mary begins by explaining that she had fainted because she thought she had seen spirits, and the reason she believed she was seeing spirits in the first place was because Danforth’s and the other girls’ hysteria

Although Mary had accomplished a lot in her professional success, her personal life was still not under control. She claims that the people that were making money off of her had her “blind”. They supported her bad habits, they bought her cocaine and alcohol just so they could continue to get money.

Mary is also struggling against a feeling of displacement. It’s ironic that the two things she places most importance on are the two things she doesn’t posses. Her parents ignore her up until their deaths and she has no friends due to a bitter

The following is a thought experiment by Jackson to undermine Physicalism. “Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specialises in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina...What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a colour television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then it is inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false” (Jackson 130). At this point of time, Mary supposedly

Mary had a poor education, she was not trained as a palaeontologist or a geologist, she had absolutely zero qualifications

There are two main theories that make up the knowledge argument. The first is Physicalism, (or better known as materialism) which is the thesis that “All facts are dependent upon physical processes.”(Smart) The other main stance taken is property dualism. The thesis of property dualism states that there are “Non-physical properties of physical substances” (Calef) or that there are physical and mental properties. In this article, I will defend the stance of property dualism by acknowledging objections and replying to these objections to show why the argument for property dualism works.

After reading the Jackson article I have concluded that I agree with the points being made against physicalism. The example that I believe disproves physicalism is trying to

He believes that the reaction a person has when seeing red for the first time can be explained purely using physical information. Therefore Mary, knowing all physical information, would learn nothing new. However he agrees that Mary could learn something in a new way.