YPHI0005 Food for thought
The philosophy of food

Introduction

Can objective science explain conscious experience?

Smelly Tofu

Ordinary tofu: Precipitated soy protein High pH (5.8-6.2) Moisture content (80-88%) Curdling induced with calcium sulphate Smelly tofu: volatile componds

Anosmia

• Anosmia = Inability to detect odors; Ageusia: The inability to taste sweet, sour, bitter, or salty substances.
• Congenital Anosmia= anosmia since birth
• Physiology of taste
• some comments from anosmics:

  "I can't tell the difference between apple juice and onion juice!"

  "Some herbs used to season food are, for me, nothing but decoration..."

  "I talk about this very naturally, and ask my friends to describe me the different kinds of smell - although it is kind of impossible for me to understand, since I've never smelled anything. It's like trying to explain what is a 'color' to someone who has been born blind."

The knowledge argument

The argument

Suppose Mary is a brilliant scientist with congenital anosmia, and Paul is a normal person.

1. Mary knows all the physical facts about tasting smelling tofu - facts of physics, chemistry, neurophysiology, and any other relevant scientific facts. Mary knows all the physical changes happening in Paul's brain when he tastes smelly tofu.
2. Mary does not know what it is like for Paul to taste smelly tofu.
3. So there is at least one fact about Paul's experience that Mary does not know. This is a non-physical fact.

Comments

• Physicalism is the view that everything in the world is physical. Some people take this argument to show that physicalism is wrong, e.g. The mind is not physical, we have souls, the brain is not a computer, etc.
• The same argument applies to other sensory and perceptual experiences, e.g. experiences of color, sound, etc..
• The argument above dervies from Frank Jackson's original knowledge argument.

  • James Pryor's notes on Jackson's argument
  • Replies to Jackson
  • Frank Jackson "Epiphenomenal Qualia"
  • Qualia: The Knowledge Argument
  • http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/knowledgeargument.html

Replies to the knowledge argument

1. Mary lacks knowledge of an old fact

• See Horgan's reply
• Reply - (a) It is true that Mary lacks some knowledge about Paul's experience, but (b) there is no non-physical fact that Mary does not know. (c) May knows everything about his experiences in a third-person way, but not know about the experiences in a first-person way.
• Analogy - Someone might know that ice is made of water, but does not know that ice is made of H₂O.
• Problems with this reply.

The ability reply

• See Lewis's reply
• There is "knowing that" (factual knowledge / knowledge of facts) and "knowing how" (knowledge of ability).
• Knowing how is a matter of having the right kind of ability. In the case of experience it is a matter of being able to imagine, remember, and recognize a type of experience. This kind of knowledge does not involve knowledge of facts.
• What Mary has is factual knowledge about Paul's experience, but she does not have the other kind of knowledge.
• Problems with this reply.

---