Ray Peat and Philosophy of Mind.

[strongvirtue]

Greetings everyone,

I'm currently getting ready for my Philosophy of Mind exam. Although I would have loved to contact Ray personally, that option is no longer possible unfortunately. Hence, I'm seeking help from all you brilliant minds in this forum.

I have a question regarding Ray's perspective on the mind-body problem. I'm aware that Ray's philosophy is deeply influenced by William Blake's, which perceives the entire world as being alive.

While it may not align with the mainstream interpretation of Blake's work, which often characterizes him as anti-rationalistic or anti-empiricist, Ray's understanding of Blake is not strictly anti-empiricist. In fact, Ray places significant emphasis on empirical experience, As Ray himself quoted in his article: "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

From a philosophical standpoint, drawing from my understanding of Ray's newsletter and articles, it appears that Ray holds a position as a materialist and/or physicalist. However, his stance is not that of a typical physicalist. While traditional dualism asserts that the mind and body are distinct entities, Ray's perspective aligns more closely with the identity theory, where the brain and mind are not fundamentally separate from one another, that they are the same thing.

Now my question is, how do you think Ray would react to the powerful anti-physicalist argument known as the knowledge argument, due to Australian Philosopher Frank Jackson?
(=> A classic illustration of this argument is the scenario of Mary in a black and white room. Despite Mary's extensive knowledge of color, including its physical properties, wavelengths, and how the brain processes each wavelength, she lacks firsthand experience of color due to her confinement in the black and white environment. Suddenly, the door opens, and she has the opportunity to perceive color for the very first time. In this moment, she acquires knowledge about the subjective experience of color that eluded her despite an eternity of studying color solely through a "physicalist" lens.)

Love to everyone and thanks for any input :)

 

[ThinPicking]

In fact, Ray places significant emphasis on empirical experience, As Ray himself quoted in his article: "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

A classic illustration of this argument is the scenario of Mary in a black and white room. Despite Mary's extensive knowledge of color, including its physical properties, wavelengths, and how the brain processes each wavelength, she lacks firsthand experience of color due to her confinement in the black and white environment. Suddenly, the door opens, and she has the opportunity to perceive color for the very first time. In this moment, she acquires knowledge about the subjective experience of color that eluded her despite an eternity of studying color solely through a "physicalist" lens.

It's right there, is it not.

 

[DaveFoster]

Now my question is, how do you think Ray would react to the powerful anti-physicalist argument known as the knowledge argument, due to Australian Philosopher Frank Jackson?
(=> A classic illustration of this argument is the scenario of Mary in a black and white room. Despite Mary's extensive knowledge of color, including its physical properties, wavelengths, and how the brain processes each wavelength, she lacks firsthand experience of color due to her confinement in the black and white environment. Suddenly, the door opens, and she has the opportunity to perceive color for the very first time. In this moment, she acquires knowledge about the subjective experience of color that eluded her despite an eternity of studying color solely through a "physicalist" lens.)

So, she was human and has the capacity to experience color, and when given color, she perceives it? Is this drivel what they teach in college currently or are you stating it poorly? The capacity exists in the apparatus by which it perceives. As much as genetics has been denounced on this forum, we still have capacities to perceive color.

 

[LUH 3417]

So the anti physicalist argument is that you can understand something abstractly but knowledge takes experience? Seems weird it would be called anti physicalist since that’s the basis of materialism.

 

[strongvirtue]

So, she was human and has the capacity to experience color, and when given color, she perceives it? Is this drivel what they teach in college currently or are you stating it poorly? The capacity exists in the apparatus by which it perceives. As much as genetics has been denounced on this forum, we still have capacities to perceive color.

Haha I am probably stating it poorly. Here is a better Description from Frank Jackson Wikipedia:
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 specializes 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, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence 'The sky is blue'. (…) What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color 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 is it 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, Frank, “Epiphenomenal Qualia.” (1982)

 

[strongvirtue]

So the anti physicalist argument is that you can understand something abstractly but knowledge takes experience? Seems weird it would be called anti physicalist since that’s the basis of materialism.

It is anti-physicalist, as you cannot explain the "experience of color" in a purely physical terms.