phil test

fails to account for subjective experience

2 people who describe an object with the same name but perceive it completely differently

• Searles intuitions are unreliable and his analogies are misleading • ignorance

even if Searle doesn’t understand Chinese, the system as a whole does

if Searle internalizes the system he would still not understand Chinese and therefore neither would the system

give a computer program sensory inputs and behavioural outputs like a robot, then it would have understanding

even if we still do this we don’t have understanding

the program simulates the actual neuronal activity of the brain of a chinese speaker

lacks the causal powers of the neurobiological brain

no amount of physical information will allow us to know what Fred’s experiece is like when he sees the extra colour red

knows all the physical facts about seeing colour doesn’t know everything about colour

the view that qualia do not causally influence the physical world

the hurtfulness of pain seems like the obvious cause of subsequent pain behaviours

both hurtfulness of pain and behaviours may have an underlying common cause

it’s reasonable to assume that we evolved to have qualia. but if so then it should be conductive to our survival. bt if they are epiphenomenal then they are not.

qualia may simply be by-products of brain processes that are themselves conductive to survival

the best reason we have for believing other people have qualia stems from behaviour but if other peoples behaviour can only provide reason to believe they have qualia if it is the causal effect of those qualia

behaviour can also provide reason to believe in qualia because it is the causal effect of brain events which qualia are the causal effect of as well

knowledge that vs. knowledge how

they trick mary but she she knows - intuition is unreliable

we can’t know what it is like to be a bat - subjective point of view

easy and hard problems of consciousness

those that can be solved in appeal to neural and computational mechanisms using standard methods of cognitive science

not about functions or abilities