Professor O'Riley and I are crammed together at a small window table enjoying warm chips and salsa along with a pitcher of Sam Adams. I had often imagined this - not us trying to talk above the din of crowded cafe - but our bodies so close - like we are now - whispering sweet nothings in our imagination wishing we were elsewhere aware of no one but each other and free to do what we wanted.
Practically every night at Border's in Harvard Square it is jam packed with people - a line that runs 50 feet down Church Street. I got there early and was already seated by the window working on my weekly paper when I spotted him and his friend and they me.
I motioned for them to come on in and join me which they gladly did. We all gave our orders and Professor O'Riley's friend Professor Stevenson left us alone for 15 minutes while he joined students in line to chat.
We smiled at each other as we watched him out the window. What a pro! He was a rarity for Harvard Square where there were many pleasant people, but few friendly extroverts besides street people.
I was glad I had the professor's "In Defense of the Knowledge Argument" laying on the table in plain sight; he nodded his head in approval and our discussion soon veered off to this weeks assignment.
As it turned out his colleague Professor Stevenson was also interested in learning about this weeks lecture as it was a natural fit with one of his projects.
Trying to practice on the professors I quoted almost word for word what he had written in his Meta-physics Course Packet regarding "Jackson's Knowledge Argument".
Pointing to his 2.5" high $120. bright red book I said:
"Professor, as I recall you are saying here that there are certain things which you can know everything physical and functional about but not know everything about and which because of that, make physicalism and functionalism false. Is that correct?"
He smiled that darling seductive smile I had grown to love and replied:
"Yes Babe, that is correct. The 'Knowledge Argument'
says that having this extra knowledge - the knowledge of everything physical and functional - depends on the existence of special non-physical properties."
Professor Stevenson interjected :
"Aren't these properties known as "qualia"?
I couldn't contain myself:
"Oh Professor I recall what you said. See if I get this
right! The qualia are supposed to be properties
of your experiences. Because of qualia you can say of your experiences that they feel a certain way or look a certain way to you. The Knowledge Argument purports to show that qualia exist; moreover it purports to show that qualia are nonphysical and nonfunctional...."
Professor O'Riley looked impressed and said:
"Yes, Babe, that is correct but what you need to remember is that Philosopher Frank Jackson whose argument I am defending is directly opposed to the theories that support Physicalism' (1) and "Materialism". That of course is why his argument is called "The Dualist Approach To Consciousness Defended". (2) He is very specific when he says that
physicalism is not the controversial thesis that the actual world is largely physical, but the challenging thesis that it is entirely physical. (3) This is never
more self-evident than when he discusses his now
well known, "What Mary Didn't Know."
I broke in to ask the Professor:
"See if I have this right. "What Mary Didn't Know"
is the hypothetical story about Mary, a woman who is educated through black and white books
and through lectures relayed on black and white television. While she is confined to her world totally devoid of color - she eventually becomes an expert and learns everything there is to know about the physical facts regarding human beings and the environment they occupy; in other words, Mary knows everything physical in the world there is possible to know, according to the definition of physicals, which hold the REAL WORLD contains nothing but matter and energy and objects that have only physical properties such as spatiotemporal position, mass, size, shape and gravity. (4)
Professor Stevenson broke in that point and said:
"Babe that's correct as far it goes, but remember if we
were to suppose that there is MORE to know about
Mary knowing every physical fact, then we would
be supporting the very concept physicalism declares
false."
Professor O'Riley poured himself another beer and helped himself to a corn chip and salsa. He resumed his primary role in the conversation:
"Babe, and you too Professor Stevenson - follow me on this - this is important - it's here that it becomes obvious that Mary DOES NOT KNOW ALL THERE IS TOO KNOW, for when she is let out of the black and white room and given a color television, she will learn what it is like to see something-say - red. This is rightly described as LEARNING - SHE WILL NOT SAY "HO, HUM." Hence Physicalism is false. (5)
Taking his Taco Salad from the waiter O'Riley motioned to me and said:
"Okay, I am going to eat and listen to you Babe and Professor Stevenson. So tell me, what comes next?"
Professor Stevenson took a long sip of his beer and continued our three way conversation:
"Here is how I see it. Jackson's argument does not rest
on the claim that logically Mary COULD NOT IMAGINE
what sensing red was like - it was instead-
that IN ACTUALITY SHE WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE
EXPERIENCE "TRULY FELT LIKE" UNTIL she personally
experienced the SENSATION of seeing the color red.
Your turn now, Babe!"
I was laughing inside to myself now. All this work and I
suddenly knew what this was all about hoping
they could see the brilliance in what I was about to contribute to the conversation.
Stifling my laughter I said:
"Okay guys, listen up! Here's the deal. It's true Mary
could not in actuality know what the experience
truly felt like until she personal experienced the sensation of seeing the color red. It would be like
Professor O'Riley popping a chocolate covered cherry into his mouth. Previous to the first time he did this, he may be able to imagine what it would be like but until, the delicious flavors of milk chocolate, creamy filing and maraschino cherry all together burst forth in his mouth, HE IS ONLY IMAGINING OR SPECULATING; HE REALLY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE EXPERIENCE IS LIKE, UNTIL HE ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH IT FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. After that, the taste can be imagined and "tasted" in an unmistakable repeatable fashion that can generate the action of the saliva glands and make one's mouth water.
Professor O'Riley dabbed at his mouth with his napkin and said:
"Very good Babe, but let's take that a little further.
Are imagining and knowing really that far apart?
Certainly I could imagine my wife in my office
although she has never been there. Why doesn't
this kind of imagining count as knowledge?"
I could hardly contain myself but I knew the example
I was about to give could be considered highly
improper, but I plunged ahead anyway:
"Here is how I see it. My argument does not rest
on the claim that logically I COULD NOT IMAGINE
what sensing the chocolate covered cherry was like - it is instead - that I could not IN ACTUALITY KNOW WHAT THE EXPERIENCE "TRULY FELT LIKE" until I personally experienced the sensation of having that chocolate covered cherry bursting forth in my mouth.
Professor O'Riley poured me another glass of beer from the picture and with a crooked grin said:
"Not bad Babe, not bad. Any other analogies up your sleeve."
Taking an extra big sip I replied:
"Okay, let me use another example that when I thought of it, it seemed perfectly clear although
I hope you do not think it improper.
Professor O'Riley you asked me 'Why doesn't imagining count as knowledge?'
Hesitating and then taking a deep breath I forged ahead:
I do think imagining and knowing are VERY far apart.
For years I tried to imagine what it would be like to have an orgasm and could NEVER figure it. I could have imagined for a life time and it would have made no difference. Once I read some books that told me how I could masturbate and make this happen, I actually had the experience and then gained the knowledge that no amount of imagining could have ever given me ."
With that he and his friend chuckled and applauded me. Professor O'Reily said:
"Who could argue with that one! You deserve an
A+ for sure."
********
I tried to pay the bill but Professor Stevenson insisted
on paying and wouldn't even let me get the tip.
We walked a few blocks to Professor O'Riley's and Professor Stevenson's Red Line Subway Connection where we ran into Jon Z. Johansson the able assistant to Professor O'Reily who had just been accepted with full schoarlship to John Hopkins for the coming fall term.
I had long had the hots for this adorable guy and
had spent many a lonely night with him in fantasy while masturbating alone in my room, he was young, hot and as far as I could tell, always horny. One thing for sure he was unattached and wouldn't make me feel guilty if he fell for my charms.
I said goodnight to the professors and even gave them a hug for the hell of it and quickly agreed that I would be happy to have Jon escort me back to my suite 5 blocks away. I was feeling so hot and tipsy it simply wasn't safe for me to walk alone. The good professors were worried about me.
**************
Jon walked me home and came in for coffee. Nothing happened for two weeks but for the rest of the summer we had a good time and made love right up until he left for John Hopkins.
***********
Footnotes:
(1)Physicalism is based upon the premise that
"Physicalistic Materialism " is a theory of
"Logical Positivism" and one directly opposed
to metaphysics. It maintains that syntactic or
logical arrangement of words or phrases can
be constructed to explain all scientific facts
in terms of language of physical sciences.
(2) Jackson's Dualism approach to consciousness
is considered sound and cannot be disproved, its
approach has been supported by many currently in the
scientific community who oppose AI (Artificial
Intelligence). To date, materialists and physicalists
have not been able to answer the many hanging
questions and successfully reduce the mental world
to the physical world simply by asserting that all
mental events are actually nothing but a series of
physical occurrences; physicalists and materialists are
left with many serious questions the effect our future.
Jackson's Dualism and Knowledge Arguments logically
provide answers and so far, in the opinion of many
credible intellectuals, give answers that fit.
(3) Jackson 1986, p.291 Philosophical Topics Vol.22
(4) Oxford, 1994, p. 679
(5) Jackson 1986, p. 291 Philosophical Topic
|
Submitted by:
Babe
view profile
|
You have new unread mail messages!
Click here for your Inbox!
