3 ms·

What is your point? The article puts forward this point too among many other counterpoints.

• the_af 4y ago
  I think I explained my point, why do you ask? But to summarize for you: it's not true that Mary "knew all" just by reading about the color red. The premise is false. She lacked one bit of information: to have her optic nerve stimulated by a red apple. Note this isn't metaphysical, it's physical; such stimulation can be physically measured and she lacked this experience, which -- to emphasize the point -- is entirely physical. Again, I think the thought experiment can be probably reframed in order to fix this flaw, but Mary and her red apple as currently stated are not convincing of any duality.
  • distcs 4y ago
    I am trying to understand what point you are trying to express that is not already very well expressed in the article. Or are you repeating one of the several counterpoints mentioned in the article? If so why is this one counterpoint more important than the other counterpoints made in the article?
    • PixyMisa 4y ago
      The point here is that the argument is not internally consistent. If Mary knows everything there is to know about colour vision, that includes knowing the experience of seeing the colour red. If she doesn't know that, it simply contradicts the premise.
      • distcs 4y ago
        Once again, all of this, including what you just said in this comment is already discussed in the article!
        • the_af 4y ago
          I find your comment puzzling. So your objection is that we cannot restate or emphasize the opinion that this thought experiment is flawed? If so, duly noted.
  • PixyMisa 4y ago
    Right. It's very similar to Bishop Berkeley's argument for idealism, in that the thought experiment doesn't make sense unless you assume a priori that physicalism is false.