# Mary and a Bowling Ball



## T.A.G. (Feb 6, 2010)

So as I am reading a critique on naturalism by Taliaferro and Goetz
I am trying to understand one of their arguments for dualism.

To sum it up is basically states that Marry has spent her whole life in a room and has never experienced pain though she learned a great deal about pain through text books. One day Marry left the room and dropped a bowling ball on her toe, and now she has felt pain...

They basically say that this furthers an understanding of some sort of duality...

can some one explain because I have no idea how this proves anything?!


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 6, 2010)

Well for one it is circular in nature. They assume something about the person experiencing this pain and then when she experiences the pain they say look we are right. this is circular reasoning on an implicit level. For two this argument proves nothing other than that she experienced pain, nothing more. Beyond that this argument still doesn't make any sense, i would love to know what the actual argument is.


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 7, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> So as I am reading a critique on naturalism by Taliaferro and Goetz
> I am trying to understand one of their arguments for dualism.
> 
> To sum it up is basically states that Marry has spent her whole life in a room and has never experienced pain though she learned a great deal about pain through text books. One day Marry left the room and dropped a bowling ball on her toe, and now she has felt pain...
> ...


 
The point they are making is that the subjective experience of feeling pain is not a physical entity. One can know all of the physical facts about pain without knowing what it feels like to have pain.


----------



## T.A.G. (Feb 7, 2010)

how does this show a dual aspect of man though?


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 7, 2010)

The experience of what it feels like to be in pain cannot be expressed in physicalist terms so man has a non-physical aspect. There is something about man that is non-physical. If man were only a physical entity, then his experience of what it feels like to be in pain can be expressed in physicalist terms.


----------



## T.A.G. (Feb 14, 2010)

cih1355, I know we have talked before on this in messages
but what would be your best argument for an immaterial aspect that we have?


----------



## cih1355 (Feb 16, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> cih1355, I know we have talked before on this in messages
> but what would be your best argument for an immaterial aspect that we have?


 
Hi Tyler,

Mental phenomena do not have the same properties as physical entities so they cannot be identical. For example, physical entities have properties such as location, mass, weight, and so on. But no mental phenomena has these properties. 

Mental phenomena have what is called "intentionality", but physical entities do not have this. Intentionality means "aboutness." Mental phenomena refer to things outside of themselves. For example, your thoughts are always about something. Physical entities do not refer outside themselves in this way. Physical objects can have different relations to one another. They can be on top of other objects or be next to other objects. However, they cannot be about one another. 

Some people think that since your ideas correspond with your brain wave activity, then your ideas are identical with your brain wave activity. However, there is something true of your ideas that is not true of your brain wave activity so that cannot be identical. Your iideas can be assigned a truth value, but your brain wave activity cannot be assigned a truth value.


----------



## T.A.G. (Feb 16, 2010)

truth value?


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 16, 2010)

T.A.G. said:


> truth value?


Truth values are metaphysical properties( which means above or beyond the physical), and brain waves are purely physical in nature. If a proposition is true than it is true regardless of whether or not my brain waves have a particular wavelength or whatever, but my brainwaves could match the state of mind of someone who believes that something is true but have the proposition in question actually being false. My brain might tell you that I believe that Elvis is still alive but it doesn't really matter what my brain says because he is dead.


----------

