วีดีโอ

Hmm would have been better if you DID discuss at least some of the responses to the problem. Because responses to counter arguments to your argument are well... part of the argument! The argument doesn't succeed if the premises are not plausible.

Bro, I thought this shit was gonna have millions of views and I’m SHOCKED your channel doesn’t have more subs. Not kidding, this video is the best explanation of Bayes Theorem I’ve ever seen. I’ve been diving into textbooks, videos, and every practice example I can work through for the past month and this just made the whole process click better than any other explanation yet. Seriously, keep up the content and if you keep dropping videos like this your channel’s going to explode

It is not hiddeness of deity. It is lackness of evidence.

Mary gains experiential knowledge upon seeing the color that was withheld from her, as was stated here multiple times. This experiential knowledge of course had an underlying neural substrate - i.e., neural circuitry that had simply never been activated. To claim that the new knowledge (no matter how subjective and personal to Mary) is non-physical, or denies physicalism, is absurd. Is the claim that the processes involved in experiencing red are not in fact neural (and therefore physical)? Could this occur without an underlying neural substrate? Can information of any sort be transmitted, stored, or received without a physical (matter-energy) substrate? Of course not. Any generation or storage of information is an energy-dependent process opposing entropy (and is sometimes referred to as a kind of "negative entropy"). The Jackson argument amounts to Cartesian-style flim-flam wherein a non-physical reality is asserted as a necessary explanation sans evidence. It should be added that the color vision paradigm is a poor choice to begin with, because in order to see color, mammals must first experience color in the days and weeks after birth. A different modality such as pain could have made a better paradigm, but the conclusion would be the same. If you have had your teeth drilled at the dentist under the dissociative anesthetic nitrous oxide, you know that the experience of pain can be pharmacologically separated from the negative affective response. An "experience" which can be profoundly altered by physical agents such as nitrous oxide (or psychedelics) can only explained by the normal or aberrant processing of information by a neural substrate. An experience can also be conjured simply by electrically stimulating an area of cerebral cortex. A rejection of physicalism must explain how pharmacological agents and electrical currents link up and effect some postulated non-physical reality. So far the dualists have offered nada.

5:20 in this example child atleast know the mom exist we dont even know that

Mary's room is a very poor argument

God isn't hiden you just need a infered lense to see the unseen lite energy

The argument is simply incomplete. If in fact Mary learns EVERYTHING about the color red, then this means she has to have had her optic nerves artificially stimulated in exactly the way one would receive after seeing red. The various shades of red would have to be artificially sent, and the way red stimulation is impacted by signals of other colors. If this is done with "complete knowledge of all things red" then the experiment of Mary's room would end in the obvious answer that , NO, she did not learn anything new upon seeing the color red. If you do not stipulate that she be artificially stimulated with the signals representing red, then you are clearly admitting that the experiment is withholding from Mary a very fundamental fact about seeing the color red. This argument falls apart if ANY knowledge of seeing the color red, is withheld from Mary.

Not so persuasive, the entire argument was weak. It could be refuted by simply reading the Bible with an open mind. Light and truth will be revealed. That's what I did.

The first analogy doesn’t work because it’s the same person from three different periods of time. The father is not the son the son is not the spirit, etc. The first analogy is better fitting for Modalism. But the second analogy is much better.

(Shatner Voice) What does god need with a time machine?

Not only has Frank Jackson himself abandoned his famous thought experiment, but Patricia Churchland and Neurophilosophy come along and completely destroy it. The answer is actually, no, Mary doesn't actually learn anything because she is physiologically incapable. th-cam.com/video/h0nTeDWvpj4/w-d-xo.html

thank you, this video opened up more questions than answers haha but it's helping me reframe my own language for myself, thank you

I am trying to find in which source of Schellenberg does he give the analogy of the mother and child playing hide and seek. Is anyone able to help with this?

Evil is contingent.

Few things are as compelling as a badly worded thought experiment. Ants will march around a teacup rim till they die.

The separation of "learned facts" from "experience" is sentimental and half-baked. Life is a constant tracking of one onto the other. Mathematicians working in higher dimensions confess that they can't picture them.

This sounds like modalism. A man being a Father, a husband and a brother. I like this analogy best: The Sun, Sun-light and the heat. The light and heat cannot exist without the Sun. Without the light and heat; the light being Jesus, God cannot be a Father. You cannot look upon the Sun, but you can see it emits light and feel the heat it radiates. These 3 are interrelated. In the egg 🥚 analogy all three parts depend on each other to be an egg, so that falls short.

Bro, you are hiding your answers, therefore 100% they do not exist lol Edit: sarcasm against the supposed problem of hiddenness

In the entire video, the point of focus is Evil, it is the theme that drives that argument; how about, good; do we have good in the world? yes, evil and good go hand in hand, you can't argue evil in isolation like you did in that video. Both are largely man made. God in his wisdom created a superior being; man, Man in his superiority has the power to cause good and evil, hence God works through man, atheism would like a God who is a magician, but God is not like that, he gave man wisdom to do good and to stop evil.

yes or no? Theirfore yes mary will gain knowlege. Foe example reading about something you have never seen in motion would deprivve you the knowlege of (in this case colour) subject in expression. So for example "Green with envy" the association of green implys jelousy in humans, would cause emotional impact. The same way most Danger Sings are mainly Red. The colour has emotional impact. Unless mary knows any knowledge beyond colour then how can she know their are signs made to warn of danger? or people are jelous of each other in life?

keep doing these videos

Thank you for this video!

This just sounds like modalism.

It's 2022, a time when men can eat, drink and be Mary.

Yes Mary is definitely learning something. What if she was presented with three colors at the same time - red, green and blue. She will not be able to identify them, unless she measured the wavelengths and the other physical attributes. She is learning the experience of what each color actually looks like. Once she has this knowledge, she may not need all that knowledge that she acquired previously to identify a color.

The matrix has you

Thank you! Extremely illuminating and perspicuous. I will certainly share this with my students in some of my undergrad seminars 🙂🙂🙂🙂 I like how you basically encapsulated most of the themes hashed through, in particular, in Tamar Gendler & John Hawthorne's, eds , Conceivability and Possibility (OUP, 2002), David Lewis's On the Plurality of Worlds (Blackwell, 1986), and Marc Lange's Laws and Lawmakers (OUP, 2009), inter alia... what l definitely do NOT assign as required reading to my undergraduates 😉!

I cannot find the following video you mentioned, about the responses that have been given to this argument. I have heard only about Kirkegaard's response, which is not really convincing, actually, can you give some examples of other responses?

Hmm. So Mary knows (by definition) what effect the colour red has on the brain. But could she use that information to imagine what red would “look like” if she did see it? So maybe the underlying question then is: is Mary capable of imagining how different brain states would look and feel when realised in her mind? And, if she is, would that validate or invalidate physicalism? I’m not actually sure…

Both P1 and P2 are true, however, the first conclusion is in error. C1 Doesn't follow from P1 and P2 - a nonsequitur. If God constantly did small minor things or altered our mind in such a way so we feel His love at all times - so that we'd know that He exists would all but take away our ability to freely choose to love and be with God. The choice to deny that God exists, or at least to not follow Him would be null because Gods continuous love or whatever minor actions He performs to make Himself known would prevent us from doing so. On another note, this version of the argument assumes that God hasn't attempted multiple times to make Himself known in subtle yet very real ways in the world and in human history. Such as the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ as well as the Gospels that detail His ministry and related events for one example.

no patrick this is 1 person in 3 "past and future versions" this is just modalism with all the modes enabled at the same. trinitarianism means 3 persons in 1 God. and in order to have distinct persons jesus has to know the propostitions: 'i am jesus' and 'i am not the father nor the holy spirit' and the father and holy spirit know their own propositions and this analogy does not meet that requirement, the only thing that meets the requirement is that they are 3 distinct centers of consiousness in 1 God/being and if jesus is eternally begotten by the father how can the father be begotten by himself? in other words this is a heresy PATRICK!

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."(Romans:19-20) Everyone was born with enough intelligence to know there is a Supreme Being (John 1:4,9) ; but many have been "educated" out of all the common sense they were born with. So if you don't know there is a Great God, you didn't get that stupid on your own: you had to have had help (Rev.12:9). And by the way, "Everyone who seeks, finds"(Mat.7:8). We were created to seek our Maker (Acts 17:26-28). "Draw near to Yahweh, and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded!"(James 4:8) “I love those who love Me; And those who diligently seek me will find me." (Proverbs 8:17) I hope this was helpful to some.

You mentioned that you made another video about the arguments against the Hiddenness position. Where can I find that?

I think this is a very valid argument. I myself fall into the category of a former Born-Again Christian (Bible, seminary college professor, senior pastor, and missionary) that seeks desperately to believe again. However, it is because of the Problem of Evil and the Problem of Divine Hiddenness that I no longer can.

Please make more videos!

Ok, lets just get this one thing out of the way once and for all: ANY conversation, presentation, publication, statement etc., that speaks of "God" with a capital G and without a pronoun as if there was (only) one, just shows how prejudiced the author allready is possibly without even realising it. Such a person is allready in his mind dodging the question, of what he is really talking about. In fact, there is nothing else as personal as the idea someone can have of his very own god. The formulation "There are people, who dont believe in God, but it isnt their fault" also shows the prejudice the author is cought in. What fault may I ask?! Getting to Schellenbergs argument: Premise 1: "A perfectly loving God..." Why is the existence of Schellenbergs god mixed with his tendency to love? Isnt the question of the existence of any god relevant enough? Pascal made the same error when formulating his wager. Why should a god even feel love at all? After all, an (allmost) all powerfull beeing (thats the only common part in the definition of gods) can undo anything it may consider worth to be corrected, so why even care for anything emotionally? Premise 2: First it is formulated: "...only, if one believes, that god exists.", then it becomes: "...one needs to know, that he exists." The difference between knowing and believing, well, is exactly what this whole thought experiment is all about, isnt it? Especially how the verb believing is defined and used by religious groups and churches in particular is too much to draw any further conclusions. I can only sum up so much here - Schellenberg is putting in efford to prove that a particular god doesnt exist and thereby creates an unnecessarily complicated sub-case leaving open ends just as many religious have befor him trying to prove the opposite. All these effords are in vain when one looks at it with quite simple logic: - The existence of anything (including any god), that doesnt interfere with reality is indistinguishable from its non-existence.

interesting that people have the will to tangle with logic like this....it makes mathematics look easy......since the numbers don't move about on the page like reality does

Are you roman catholic

Even though God is behind creation, that doesn't mean that God is behind everything that happens within creation. Since certain creations, such as ourselves, have been given free will and are capable of being creators in our own right; including creating suffering for ourselves and others. This particular misunderstanding, that God is causing our suffering and perhaps punishing us, is one of the most dangerous misunderstanding promoted by religious teachers; for how can we become free from suffering if we don't understand what's causing it? As long as we believe that lie, we will blame God or others, or our circumstances for our suffering and not see that we are responsible for our suffering. Our mistaken thinking, and the negative emotions and negative actions that flow from our thoughts causes our suffering. Depending on what we choose to believe, and how we choose to respond to life; we create more Love in the world or the opposite. When we choose to express the opposite of Love or cause harm, it is not God that is at fault. God gifted us with the freedom to choose and to create, and we eventually learn from our choices to be better creators; to create happiness instead of suffering, and it is suffering that teaches us this; suffering points us away from what is anti-life, anti-Love. Our own personal suffering is the so-called "punishment" we receive when we make choices that are not aligned with Love; that is the only "punishment," if we will, meted out by God. We are designed to suffer whenever we miss the mark, which is the meaning of sin; the mark, the target or goal, is Love. We suffer whenever we fall out of alignment with Love. Suffering and joy are part of the guidance system we've been given; the homing device, which when followed, will bring us back home to Love. Suffering tells us that we are believing a lie or taking a wrong direction; while joy tells us the opposite. If we don't want to suffer, then we must stop believing and doing what causes us and others suffering; and start believing and doing what brings peace, Love and joy.

Red - Mary's favorite sport? This Mary-thought-experiment or -argument is in no way helpfull to find out whether sensations are physical states. It is actually faulty in two ways: - Firstly, it boils down to a play of words. Its a "How one reads it is why one will either agree or not"-thing. It all depends on the word "all" and whether the knowledge gained by the experience of seeing something red is included there or not. If one can imagine that to be included in "she knows ALL about red" then one has to agree that there is nothing more to learn for her by experiencing red even though its not explained how that knowledge could be learned without the experience beforehand. And if one goes the other way, that not everything can be learned by reading books without first hand experience to train the nervous system (the biological way to define learning), then the conclusion clashes with the premise hidden in the word "all" and the experiment turns out a paradoxon. So, nothing can be concluded from this thought experiment for that first reason alone, but it gets worse: - Secondly, the experiment is a non sequitur. No matter whether one would decide to agree or not to agree to the question whether Mary still has something to learn, the conclusion, whether the experience of seeing red is a physical thing or not cannot be drawn. This question is not tackled, because the premise is false: We have developed words for naming sensations and explaining them and the feelings and thoughts about them to others. Some of these are so basic, that we never found it necessary to invent many words and some are more complex, so we invented more words to describe them in their complexity and relate them to the more basic things. These complex descriptions can then be used in language/books to transport that knowledge. There is not many words to describe the sensation of red apart from "red", because its so basic to us. Therefor, there are no words to explain the meaning of the word "red" without using this word towards someone who has never experienced red first person. The basic things are not written down anywhere! It is useless to write or read: "The sensation of red is also red". That speech problem is in no way connected to the question, whether the sensation/feeling/thought of red is physical or non-physical and therefor the thought experiment doesnt lead to any insight on the topic it claims to be made for. Btw., who also remembers the 1964s "Man’s Favorite Sport?" ? In this movie a man has gained the status of an expert in the field of fishing and even has become a best selling author of fishing books. He gathered his knowledge and status over time only by talking to the customers of his fishing equipment store. Never had he been out fishing himself. I would bet, that Jackson had seen that famous movie at least once before he published his article in 1982. So, back to the question, whether the sensation of seeing red is something physical or not and what kind of experiments really answer the question. Well, of course experiencing red is something physical! Experiments on the brain have lead to that insight. And this has allready been known for long in 1982. The sensation of red is nothing else than the status of a particular amount of nervous cells in the brain beeing active together. That state of a portion of the brain represents red and therefor IS the experience/feeling of "red". It is also the imagination/thought of "red" since it can arrise without the actual optical stimulation through the eyes and for that reason it is also the memory of "red". And it has been learned by the brain to be "red" through the self confirming process during the optical experience of something red. This process (the fortification of nervous cell connections, aka learning of neural networks) has been proven in many experiments and could allready be read about in any high-school/gymnasium biology-book back in 1982. A further and final proof, which leaves no question open to the physicality of sensations/feelings/thoughts or in short minds is this: Anything a brain is capable of (or the whole nervous system distributed throughout the body for the sake of precision) like experiencing a smell, taste, sound, any memory of events, any order for a motion of any muscle, any feeling ever felt and any thought ever thought during the life of the patient (and even new ones never thought before) can be caused completely against his will by the sheer stimulation of the involved nervous cells (for example during a brain surgery) - and of course any and all of that can be erased by the destruction of the related nervous cells. The reluctance of some (some!) philosophs to check their theories against and adopt them to decades old scientific results, especially of the field of neuro-science might never back away. My guess is, those have fallen in love with theorising about qualia and the existence of something non-physical.

I think this is one of those things that are awesome in theory, but break down in practice. IMO It's not possible to know everything about red if you haven't seen it since seeing it is in and of itself information about red. Neither side can be right or wrong because the experiment isn't even possible because of how it's worded. Now that I watched the video, I guess I fit the 4th and a little of the 1st category perfectly haha

How does your channel not have more views? This is BRILLIANT

Jung, like Job, bows before the ultimate mystery, but not before he has waded into the ages-old spiritual conundrums: When we talk about God, we are creating God, psychologically speaking, and we are, yet again, talking about ourselves in a way, or at least within our human epistemological limitations. In Jung’'s terms, we can only apprehend or try to comprehend God through our own, limited psyches. Jung famously (famously in Jungian circles anyway) said about his belief in God, “I know. I don’'t need to believe. I know.” But he may not have been so sure. He seemed to be sure that God existed--he was not agnostic---but Answer to Job is his further and continued wrestling with God’'s very essence. God exists, but what is he like? Answer to Job is the Answer from Jung, and it does not fit traditional Christian preconceptions. Many who knew Jung (or who did not know Jung but follow in his footsteps) rely on Jung for guidance in this area. They believe (they know)...in Jung. The late Edward Edinger, for instance, seemed to regard Jung’'s work as the new dispensation and Jung himself as representing “the highest level of consciousness yet achieved by humanity.” As a result, Jung'’s work is peerless and therefore beyond critical evaluation (Jung at Heart 29, Fall 1998, p. 2). One is not allowed to judge it. Be that as it may, one can see Answer to Job as one of Jung'’s last great inner explorations, taken in advanced age and failing health. If one wishes, one can see this as something he did for us, which we are still striving to understand.

We can say that in schools for botany students if they see the plant like adientum directly rather then studing it's life cycle about it's leaves and other things ?

Matrix-style philosophical bullet dodge to the Knowledge Argument: Change the definition of knowledge to something very technical and specific.

John 20:29 Jesus said unto him, “Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.”

Great videos

Thanks for the video! Very helpful for an introduction in the modal logic and possible worlds.

I relate this argument to baking for the first time. I read and understand everything I need to know about sourdough bread but when I bake it for the first time, I quickly realize that the knowledge from the recipe isn't enough to fully understand the experience (that cause my first bread to fail). It is only from experince that I completely understand what all the bakers are talking about. I have learn something new, not in the refining of the recipe but in refining my knowledge through experience.