16

17

20

22

On The Knowledge Argument (for Qualia) (for reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/) My explanation for this depends on the distinction between the two often synonymously used terms : ‘Knowing’ vs ‘Knowledge’. To me ‘knowing’ refers to “the process of experiencing something’ which is very dependent on the subject concerned. For humans for example this could be achieved by either creating the corresponding pattern of neural firing or implanting a corresponding memory directly on to the subject’s head. The term ‘Knowledge’ on the other hand, should be used to mean the abstract model of the world that can be used for prediction. This model can have any possible representation. It’s really the ability to predict that gives any model or representation the quality of ‘knowledge’. Knowing ‘red color’ for example, is achieved by the particular way (a pattern) neurons are excited in our brain. This process is dependent on the system (human in this case) we are talking about and not just on the physical event (red color in this case). There could be any number of ways neurons could be fired in our brains. Hence the phrase - “knowing everything there is to know about a certain physical stuff’ translates to emulating the potentially infinite number of ways electric signals can be propagated with varying strength and pattern. Electric signal being analog and number of possible ordering of billions of neurons being huge, this process is practically infeasible. This infeasibility however does not take anything away from the predictive power of the knowledge itself. That is one could still possess all the knowledge that is relevant for a specific physical phenomenon. Complete knowledge still make sense (not referring to the neural firing) and can be defined as the ability to predict the outcome of every possible combination of this event with some accuracy. This goes to explain the paradox regarding ‘Mary the brilliant color scientist’ (Jackson 1982) in the following way. According to my argument above, Mary can have all possible knowledge to predict anything related to the color phenomenon including the colors she has not experienced (the exact neural firing pattern did not happen in her head). She for example can predict what would happen if the color emitted by green leaves would change to red, how that could affect the surrounding ecology, the heat distribution and so on. She could in essence re-create the universe (if she has knowledge of all concepts in addition to color) without having to experience it by herself. An interesting point to note to keep confusions at bay is, one could use the second type of knowledge to create the neural firing pattern in ones own head to get the experience as well. Even more curious thing to do would be to just implant the memory of such neural firing directly - which I argue would have the same effect. After all people who claimed to see the color red only do so by virtue of their memories only. They don’t constantly experience it as they did the first time. The takeaway from this is -- it is at least in theory possible that Mary CAN know everything there is to know about for a specific thing (or anything) by using the knowledge of how neurons works and using this knowledge in conjunction with color knowledge to excite her neurons in specific patterns.

23

24

27

30

0

3

4

11

12

13