|
|
|
|
|
by goatlover
2936 days ago
|
|
> I like analogies like this and am totally on board with you here. But again, things like 'Mary's Room' are not at all interesting or detailed addresses to this when we know so much about how brains and bodies and artificial neural networks can hold and use so many kinds of knowledge at different levels. Mary's Room demonstrates that's there's more to knowing the world than just third person descriptions. There's also experience. Whether you want to call experience a form of knowledge, or something else like an ability is the crux of whether that particular argument works or not, since it's based on whether knowing all the physical facts leaves some knowledge out (experiential). But I think it works to show that our physical theories of the world can't capture our experience of the world, because one is abstract and mathematical, and the other is how we perceive and feel. So nothing about biology, physics or ANNs bridges that gap, I don't think, since they're expressed in third person terminology. That's the hard problem. |
|