It's not circular reasoning: it's a rejection of the premise which I can easily dispute: knowing everything there is to know about sex without actually practici

It's not circular reasoning: it's a rejection of the premise which I can easily dispute: knowing everything there is to know about sex without actually practicing it is not the same as having sex. If someone subjected a brain in a vat with electrical stimulation to make it believe it's having sex (with phantom body parts it doesn't actually possess), then that is indistinguishable from actual sex -- but note how the postulation of the actual Mary experiment steers clear of actually asserting this, and instead claims she "learns the physical properties" of seeing colors. I realize Jackson is a professor and I'm not, and that this is a well known thought experiment, but I deem it so obviously invalid -- or rather, based on false premises -- that it's not worth considering. Of course I'm basing my opinion on TFA, but reading Wikipedia's summary I see other philosophers have poked holes on this experiment and even agree with me the premises are false. P.S. defining "knowing everything there is to know" the same as "physically experiencing" is circular reasoning, and I definitely disagree with this premise.