1. On your whiteboards:
Summarise Mary’s Room / The Knowledge argument include the terms Qualia, Information and Physicalism in your answer. Make sure you include both the argument itself and the point / aim. Think / Pair / Share – Can you improve each others answers?

2. Recapping Criticisms:
On your whiteboards – what to these four pictures have to do with the knowledge argument?

3. Critique 4: Qualia Don’t Exist!
A final criticism is to argue that Qualia (as we understand them) don’t exist at all, and therefore Mary learns nothing new on her leaving the room.
Philosophers supporting this view Patricia and Paul Churchland look to an idea known as eliminativism, as they believe that terms such as qualia (along with belief, desire, emotion etc.) should be eliminated from a proper understanding of human mentality.
Instead as our understanding of neuroscience grows we should refer to these specific mental states by their scientific terms – C-Fibres firing in the frontal cortex etc.

4. Critique 4: Qualia Don’t Exist!
A final criticism is to argue that Qualia don’t exist at all, and therefore Mary learns nothing new on her leaving the room.
Daniel Dennett also puts forward an argument supporting this view – intended to show that Qualia as defined don’t make logical sense, they are more confusing than we actually think and therefore it is better to do away with them entirely.
He does this by breaking down each of the properties usually associated with them and examining whether they are truly coherent.

5. Dennett: What properties do qualia have?
AN INTRINSIC NATURE (unanalysable and can’t be broken down)
DIRECTLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH INTROSPECTION (we can’t make mistakes about them),
PRIVATE (only accessible by me)
INEFFABLE (can’t be described to someone who hasn’t had the experience).

6. Critique 4: Qualia Don’t Exist!
Qualia are supposed to have an intrinsic nature (unanalysable and can’t be broken down), they are supposed to be directly accessible through introspection (we can’t make mistakes about them), private (only accessible by me) and ineffable (can’t be described to someone who hasn’t had the experience).
Experiment 1: Reactive disassociation is a medical term for a phenomenon in which a patient using morphine can feel pain but it is not unpleasant.
If this is a true occurrence (and by all accounts it is) then either we have to admit that the patient is mistaken about their qualia (meaning one of the properties fails) or that unpleasantness can be separated from the “pain” qualia (in which case they are not intrinsic). Either way our current idea of Qualia is shown to be flawed.

7. Critique 4: Qualia Don’t Exist!
Qualia are supposed to have an intrinsic nature (unanalysable and can’t be broken down), they are supposed to be directly accessible through introspection (we can’t make mistakes about them), private (only accessible by me) and ineffable (can’t be described to someone who hasn’t had the experience).
Experiment 2: Lots of people often report that as they get older they start to enjoy certain drinks and food more than they did before. In fact their tastes seem to change drastically – the biggest culprit for this is beer. What has happened here?
Dennett questions what has changed in this process. Has the taste of beer itself somehow gradually become a pleasant one? If so then qualia are not intrinsic (unanalysable), because the way that that beer tastes seems to be based on how much of it we have drank and our past experiences of it, all external, relational factors, rather than some private, intrinsic part of my own perception.
Alternatively we could say our reaction has changed, prolonged exposure has taught us to enjoy a taste we previously thought was horrible. But this has a similar issue, the unpleasantness-quale seems to be separate from the taste-quale meaning Qualia are not truly intrinsic.

8. Critique 4: Qualia Don’t Exist!
Qualia are supposed to have an intrinsic nature (unanalysable and can’t be broken down), they are supposed to be directly accessible through introspection (we can’t make mistakes about them), private (only accessible by me) and ineffable (can’t be described to someone who hasn’t had the experience).
Whilst these two experiments are not the full extent of Dennett’s writing on the topic, they go far enough to demonstrate some of the issues he has with the basic definition of qualia we’ve used so far.
Dennett argues that if qualia are truly indeterminate (i.e. the things we thought were true about qualia are not) and difficult to identify properly (without making mistakes) we would be better to eliminate them from our discussions entirely, rather than trying to radically redefine the definition. Especially if, as he believes, neuroscience will soon be able to fill in any gaps in our explanations much more accurately.

9. On Your Whiteboards:
Come up with three key questions from the dualism topic, you must know the answer to each one.
Swap whiteboards with the person next to you and try to answer their questions.
Swap back and check each others answers. Could they have added anything? Is there any improvements to be made?

10. Learning Outcomes: Topic: Dualism Knowledge Argument P-Zombies Pg 241
Excellent
Decent
Good
Topic: Dualism
SO THAT:
I can demonstrate knowledge and understanding (A01)
Compare and Contrast
Given we’ve now covered the two major theories in dualism, which appeals to you more?
Why?
Compare the theories.
Learning Outcomes:
MUST: define and describe the main key terminology
SHOULD: explain the key arguments for Substance and Property Dualism
COULD: Interpret quotes and begin to analyse Dualism
Make sure you understand the following terms, create a keywords page:
Outline the weaknesses of each argument as a mind-map:
Extension:
Using the textbooks:
What is interactionism?
Outline at least 2 problems facing this version of dualism and their respective responses.
Zombies aren’t conceivable
Mary would already know red
Conceivable just not possible
Different kind of knowledge
Possible but not in this reality
Same knowledge different way
Qualia don’t exist
Dualism
Philosophical Zombie
Substance
Mary’s Room
Property
Acquaintance Knowledge
Qualia
Intentionality
Propositional Knowledge
Indivisibility
Conceivability
Ability Knowledge
Check!
Summarise the 2 main arguments for Property Dualism in premise / conclusion form:
Make sure you understand the arguments for Substance Dualism (Indivisibility and Conceivability) covered in the previous topic.
You should also understand the main criticisms of each argument (as in your handouts).
Finally you should understand the masked man fallacy and how this applies to Descartes thinking.
Extension: Create a revision resource showing what we’ve covered about dualism, some ideas:
Flyer
Bullet Pointed Notes
Poem
Flashcards
Mindmap / Spider Diagram
P-Zombies
Pg 241
Knowledge Argument
Pg 247
Key Point: Why have people started to move towards property dualism instead of substance dualism?

11. Mini-Test - Property Dualism
What does it mean to suggest that mental properties are emergent (3 marks) Explain the criticism that whilst P-Zombies are conceivable, they may not be possible (5 marks) Outline the knowledge argument and one possible response (12 marks)

12. Homework
Read through the passage on the sheet. Identify: What problem Elisabeth has with the theory of Substance Dualism as put forward by Descartes. Why she suggests it is a problem (what reasoning she gives for her issue). Extension: Research and identify the answer that Descartes gives to this problem.