This sounds like something important to philosophers but irrelevant outside philosophy.
Say i'm in Stage 1 sleep; still conscious but observing dream like, 3D scenarios. I see people walking across a green field. One thing I'm absolutely having no concern about whatsoever is whether this experience "violates laws of nature." So far, Pete is making a great point.
But it's not a problem, as far as I can see, except for physicalists, who think the laws of nature (measurements and abstract conclusions about the measurements drawn from sensory experience which far transcends everything physics tells us about the universe - contrary to Pete's supposed refutation of color blind Mary) are comprehensive. For those philosophers, the simple act of seeing a red (or blue, if you're in a dream) apple destroys all of physicalism.
But of course, most people don't care about this. If I wake up and remember seeing - in a dream - the precise location of a bookshelf in an apartment I've never been in, and among more than 100 books on the bookshelf I pick out one in the dream a specific book on a specific location and see the cover design and author, and I also see the entire layout of the apartment, and write this all down in great detail, and then an hour later go into the apartment and everything is exactly as I saw it - well, I couldn't care at all about all the ridiculous arguments against psi. Any more than I would pay serious attention if someone tried to tell me I'm not really typing this on a compute.r
I worked at Bellevue psychiatric ward one year; that's enough work as a therapist dealing wit psychotic and brain damaged individuals. I don't have energy or time, in my 70s, to argue about unicorns!
This sounds like something important to philosophers but irrelevant outside philosophy.
Say i'm in Stage 1 sleep; still conscious but observing dream like, 3D scenarios. I see people walking across a green field. One thing I'm absolutely having no concern about whatsoever is whether this experience "violates laws of nature." So far, Pete is making a great point.
But it's not a problem, as far as I can see, except for physicalists, who think the laws of nature (measurements and abstract conclusions about the measurements drawn from sensory experience which far transcends everything physics tells us about the universe - contrary to Pete's supposed refutation of color blind Mary) are comprehensive. For those philosophers, the simple act of seeing a red (or blue, if you're in a dream) apple destroys all of physicalism.
But of course, most people don't care about this. If I wake up and remember seeing - in a dream - the precise location of a bookshelf in an apartment I've never been in, and among more than 100 books on the bookshelf I pick out one in the dream a specific book on a specific location and see the cover design and author, and I also see the entire layout of the apartment, and write this all down in great detail, and then an hour later go into the apartment and everything is exactly as I saw it - well, I couldn't care at all about all the ridiculous arguments against psi. Any more than I would pay serious attention if someone tried to tell me I'm not really typing this on a compute.r
I worked at Bellevue psychiatric ward one year; that's enough work as a therapist dealing wit psychotic and brain damaged individuals. I don't have energy or time, in my 70s, to argue about unicorns!