Mary's Room

[Jamie123]

I've been thinking a lot about "Mary's Room". In case you don't know, this was a thought experiment proposed by Australian philosopher Frank Jackson. There is a super-intelligent woman (Mary) who has spent her whole life inside a room where everything (including her own body) is in black and white. She receives information from the outside via a monochrome TV monitor. She learns all about colour, and how it is associated with light wavelengths, and how the eye processes this information, and how people have sensations of "red" and "green" and "blue". She knows and understands all the physical information down to the last detail.

One day Mary comes out of her room, and really experiences colour. She sees red and blue and green for the first time. The question Jackson posed is, does she actually gain any new information? (Bearing in mind that she already knew what colour was physically all about.) The obvious answer is that "yes, of course she does, she now knows what it is really like to experience the things called "colours" which she previously only knew as mere words". But if this is the case then there must be more to information than just data about the mere physical.

Is it the same with us and God? You could know the Bible inside out, and be able to explain all the different theologies, have opinions about them, understand how you think salvation works, etc, and yet still be like Mary stuck in her room. You could know all "about" God, but still not actually know God.

Only when you when you go outside the room...really reach out for God...not merely for information "about" God...can salvation, grace, God's love, the fellowship of the Spirit become really part of us. It is a very uncomfortable thing, but one which is required of all of us sooner or later.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

Sorry added reply by accident

Edited February 19, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

You could know all "about" God, but still not actually know God.

The thought which came to mind when I read this was about society's obsession with celebrities - some people think they know [some famous person], when the reality is, they know what's told about them, which is not the same thing.  Even God has lots of lies told about Him.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Only when you when you go outside the room...really reach out for God...not merely for information "about" God...can salvation, grace, God's love, the fellowship of the Spirit become really part of us. It is a very uncomfortable thing, but one which is required of all of us sooner or later.

The Spirit communicates things that cannot be understood by any other means, thus, Mary's room cannot apply - too many things that cannot be measured or described.  Uncomfortable though it can be, my experience is that the Lord is merciful, kind, and gentle - most of the time.  And when he's not, it's because we need Him not to be.  (Don't know about the rest of you, but sometimes, I need a good whack upside the head by a spiritual 2x4...)

[Jamie123]

48 minutes ago, zil2 said:

The Spirit communicates things that cannot be understood by any other means, thus, Mary's room cannot apply - too many things that cannot be measured or described. 

Isn't that rather the point? One can only understand redness by looking at a red object. If there was another Mary in another room, the first Mary could not convey her new knowledge of redness to her, except by showing her something red.

[Vort]

I hope you'll indulge me as I take Mary's Room rather literally and at face value. At the risk of stretching a metaphor too far, I think there are insights to be gained, or at least considered.

My opinion is that Mary, upon leaving the door into the wide world, would immediately perceive that something was very different, but would not understand what it was. Similar to how people who do not learn a language in childhood will (probably) never learn to speak as an adult, I would guess that those who do not experience color perception early might take a long time to understand the color-based input coming from their retinal cones and integrate that into their perception. The cones have certainly been firing all along and sending input to the brain, but only in very limited ways that correspond with their reaction from even-spectrum light, which is what would produce a gray color. Mary would not immediately see "in color", because her brain would not understand or easily perceive the input from her optic nerve. It might take her days or weeks, even months, to integrate color into her visual perception of reality.

I think something similar applies to people and their relationship to God. Being raised with the idea of God will add the divine perspective to one's perception. This "color spectrum" is likely religion-dependent to some degree, but I'm sure there's pretty good overlap between, say, the so-called Abrahamic religions. I bet the idea of God, divinity, sin, blessing, repentance, and other such ideas are pretty similar between Islam, Judaism, and the various branches of Christianity. I expect there is significant overlap of perception between those religions and other major religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and other eastern religions. But what if one is reared in atheism? Perhaps this whole idea of God (or gods) and the place of humanity in the universe is utterly foreign to such a mindset. At the very least, the religious would experience ideas of God "from the inside", while those reared as atheists would be forever outside, looking at religion as an odd artificial construct, no different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster that so many atheists take such delight in using to mock believers.

Those from "the inside" can experience God, while those "outside" can only observe the believers in bemusement. I suppose that even as individuals, we can move between times when we feel like we can literally speak to God as another individual standing invisibly beside us and looking at our entire belief structure as an artificial-seeming construct. I would chalk this up to being all part of the human (that is, mortal) experience, though a necessary part. Do we strive for God? When offered the choice, do we choose to believe and do our duty? I'm not talking about plugging our ears and closing our eyes and chanting, "Nyah nyah nyah I believe no matter what nyah nyah nyah", but rather about rationally choosing to follow the path of belief during those times when our faith feels weak and we seem to be struggling.

Hope those quickly typed-out thoughts make some sense.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

The question Jackson posed is, does she actually gain any new information? (Bearing in mind that she already knew what colour was physically all about.)

Is it the same with us and God?

Well, we really don't have to guess, this isn't just a thought experiment any more and hasn't been for a while.  There are lots of folks who gain the gift of hearing or clear sight for the first time.  Here are some youtube videos featuring a bunch of them.   Honestly, if I ever forget that joyful sobbing is a thing, I'll just have to look up videos like these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRerkhaY53k - seeing color for the first time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EltIpB4EtYU  - gaining sight for the first time with surgery

 

 

 

 

[zil2]

37 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Isn't that rather the point? One can only understand redness by looking at a red object. If there was another Mary in another room, the first Mary could not convey her new knowledge of redness to her, except by showing her something red.

Yes, I was reversing it - Mary will need to come out of the room - all the in-room knowledge won't be enough.

[mikbone]

 

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

........

Is it the same with us and God? You could know the Bible inside out, and be able to explain all the different theologies, have opinions about them, understand how you think salvation works, etc, and yet still be like Mary stuck in her room. You could know all "about" God, but still not actually know God.

Only when you when you go outside the room...really reach out for God...not merely for information "about" God...can salvation, grace, God's love, the fellowship of the Spirit become really part of us. It is a very uncomfortable thing, but one which is required of all of us sooner or later.

In Eden there was a tree called the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil".  Many Christians think that it was a mistake for Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit of that tree that would give them the knowledge of good and evil.  I think there is a misunderstanding of this great epoch.  Rather - I purport that like Mary – mankind was unable to experience and know good from evil.  Until they experience the result of evil, which is death – both spiritual death (separated from G-d) and physical death (separation of the spirit from the physical).  The experience of good is also two kings of life – First spiritual life (returning to G-d) and physical eternal life which is the resurrection.

Therefore we all die because of evil but are redeemed by the love of G-d through Christ because of that G-d that is good.  With this knowledge we can determine good from evil.  All that experience death and resurrection are able to have agency and choose what brings death or sacrifice for what bring life and with that choice become as the g-ds – knowing good from evil.

 

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

  I think there is a misunderstanding of this great epoch.

I believe they call this idea the "felix culpa" or "fortunate fall". You see it in the 15th Century hymn "Adam Lay Ybounden":

Adam lay ybounden
Bounden in a bond
Four thousand winters
Thought he not too long
And all was for an apple
An apple that he took
As clerkes finden written in their book
Nay had the apple taken been
The apple taken been
Nay never Our Lady
Abeen in Heaven nay Queen
Blessed be the time
That apple taken was
Therefore we bound singen
Deo gracias, deo gracias!

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I believe they call this idea the "felix culpa" or "fortunate fall". You see it in the 15th Century hymn "Adam Lay Ybounden":

Adam lay ybounden
Bounden in a bond
Four thousand winters
Thought he not too long
And all was for an apple
An apple that he took
As clerkes finden written in their book
Nay had the apple taken been
The apple taken been
Nay never Our Lady
Abeen in Heaven nay Queen
Blessed be the time
That apple taken was
Therefore we bound singen
Deo gracias, deo gracias!

Nestorian Christians believe that G-d planned on Satan (the Serpent of Eden) beguiling Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit as a benefit.  Nestorians are interesting (to me) because they do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.   But then the Nestorians are not part of “Western Culture” and the evolution of Christianity in western civilization.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

On 2/19/2023 at 10:03 AM, Jamie123 said:

One day Mary comes out of her room, and really experiences colour. She sees red and blue and green for the first time. The question Jackson posed is, does she actually gain any new information?

Terminator 2: 

The kid asked if his wounds "hurt." 
The T-101 responded, "I sense injuries.  The data could be considered pain."  I highly doubt that we humans got a sense that he "understood" pain.

I'm on the side of "no, she does not really understand colors (I spelled it correctly, a-hem) until she sees them for the first time."

I dated a blind girl briefly.  I don't know if she was ever able to have a surgery that would allow her to see.  I didn't know the particular cause of her blindness.  But she could identify light and dark. 

While she was a gifted painist, she had no idea about dancing.  She said that when she danced, she could move with the rhythm.  But she looked goofy.  I asked her to show me. 

I do NOT mean to insult her.  She was really sweet and pretty, very talented, and smarter than average, and I considered her a friend.  She could sway with music on slow songs.  But with a fast song, she really had no idea what to do.  Well... I agreed with her.  It was beyond goofy.  It was really... well, you get the picture... even is she didn't. 

I'm only guessing that she had been told by others as well.  How else would she have known?  Even so, she really had no idea what was "goofy" or what she could do to change that.  I wanted to teach her to be a more "normal" dancer.  But I had two problems. 

• I was only a typical nerdy dancer.  I didn't have much formal training beyond the waltz.  So, I was in no condition to actually teach anyone anything.
• All of the descriptions that I could offer were based on shapes and flows.  I didn't know how to put it in terms that she could understand without visual aids.  So, I was useless.

Another example: I've been teaching my daughter to be a drafter (<- @askandanswer, please take note, a-hem).  We were looking at steel members.  When I was giving verbal descriptions, she had no idea what I was saying.  And this is basic geometry.  She knew all the words I was saying. But she simply couldn't picture it.  So, I just did a google search to show her pictures.  Imagine how everything just clicked.

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

a drafter (<- @askandanswer, please take note, a-hem

Don't be d(r)aft!

[Vort]

18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Don't be d(r)aft!

You misspelled "daught".

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Don't be d(r)aft!

Does that make me dafter than you or just daffy?

[askandanswer]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

You misspelled "daught".

Is daught the diminutive term for daughter, or does it perhaps refer to a small daughter? Or perhaps there  is a possibility that you might have misspelled draught.

[Jamie123]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:01 PM, Carborendum said:

I spelled it correctly, a-hem

Much as I hate to admit it, I think you're right. British (so i understand) used to spell it "color" too, until a wave of Francophilia made it fashionable to use French spelling. Center/centre and meter/metre are other examples. (Though oddly in the latter case it only applies to the metric unit and not to instruments. We still write "ammeter"  "voltmeter" and "speedometer".)