Of course … she is supposed to be a super scientist precisely in order to avoid that objection.
Right. And my point is that it doesn’t avoid the objection it just says “assume that objection is wrong”.
And that’s fine as far as it goes, it’s philosophy. It helps expose the hidden assumptions in physicalist and non-physicalist viewpoints. I’m not saying that Mary’s Room is bad philosophy, I’m saying it’s not a great argument for one of these positions...which is, IMO, by far the most common usage of Mary’s Room.
Right. And my point is that it doesn’t avoid the objection it just says “assume that objection is wrong”.
Unless it says...assume the objection might be wrong. The reader is invited to have the intuition that there is a remaining problem, absent the quantitative issues, but they don’t have to, and not everyone does.
I’m saying it’s not a great argument for one of these positions...which is, IMO, by far the most common usage of Mary’s Room.
But physicalism isn’t an intuition-free default. And a lot of people don’t realise that.
To be honest I find myself confused by this whole conversation as your phrasing makes it feels like you think you’re saying things in contradiction or contrast to what I’m saying and I feel like what you’re saying is not really in tension with what I’m saying. I assume it’s me not communicating my thoughts clearly or not understanding your point.
Unfortunately this conversation is going to run into a classic problem. I don’t have enough care resources to go around on the subject raised mostly as an aside to begin with. I’ll give just one example and then let you have the final words if you so desire:
But physicalism isn’t an intuition-free default. And a lot of people don’t realise that.
I agree with this 100%. But I’m very confused that you said it.
If I said “neither chocolate nor vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream” and you said “but vanilla ice cream is not the best ice cream”, I would be confused by what you said.
The “but” makes me think that you think your statement is in contrast to the sentence you quoted but I think it’s in agreement with the sentence you quoted.
Let me re-word the sentence you quoted:
“I’m saying it’s not a great argument for one of these positions because it exposes both positions as being based upon intuitions...which is, IMO, by far the most common usage of Mary’s Room.”
Right. And my point is that it doesn’t avoid the objection it just says “assume that objection is wrong”.
And that’s fine as far as it goes, it’s philosophy. It helps expose the hidden assumptions in physicalist and non-physicalist viewpoints. I’m not saying that Mary’s Room is bad philosophy, I’m saying it’s not a great argument for one of these positions...which is, IMO, by far the most common usage of Mary’s Room.
Unless it says...assume the objection might be wrong. The reader is invited to have the intuition that there is a remaining problem, absent the quantitative issues, but they don’t have to, and not everyone does.
But physicalism isn’t an intuition-free default. And a lot of people don’t realise that.
To be honest I find myself confused by this whole conversation as your phrasing makes it feels like you think you’re saying things in contradiction or contrast to what I’m saying and I feel like what you’re saying is not really in tension with what I’m saying. I assume it’s me not communicating my thoughts clearly or not understanding your point.
Unfortunately this conversation is going to run into a classic problem. I don’t have enough care resources to go around on the subject raised mostly as an aside to begin with. I’ll give just one example and then let you have the final words if you so desire:
I agree with this 100%. But I’m very confused that you said it.
If I said “neither chocolate nor vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream” and you said “but vanilla ice cream is not the best ice cream”, I would be confused by what you said.
The “but” makes me think that you think your statement is in contrast to the sentence you quoted but I think it’s in agreement with the sentence you quoted.
Let me re-word the sentence you quoted:
“I’m saying it’s not a great argument for one of these positions because it exposes both positions as being based upon intuitions...which is, IMO, by far the most common usage of Mary’s Room.”