Thursday, September 04, 2008

thinking about commenting

I note this comment thread wherein RC arrives in the thread and asserts

But isn’t (1r) clearly false?

then thinking a little more

Looking back to the original post, I guess there’s meant to be an implicit “
about red” appended to the premises...So even with the restriction, (1r) still seems clearly false.

after a little clarification from Richard Brown

Ah, thanks, that clarifies the argument... I must say I no longer have the faintest intuition that Mary learns any such thing (and I doubt anyone but a confirmed physicalist would have any such intuition

Ironically if he had looked a little further up the thread he would have seen that Brandon someone he knows is not a physicalist understood the argument as did another commenter who, I expect to his confusion, RC would term a dualist (because RC considers dualism to be about non-reductionism).

And that combines with the fact that the whole point of the argument is a proof that the argument form doesn't work, that a hard core dualist might not find it intuitive is symetrical with a hard core physicalist not finding the knowledge argument intuitive. Except he was trying to argue against it...

Hmm... one wishes some peopel would think a little before they comment.


Post a Comment

<< Home