2 ms·

> that's one opinion No, it's not, it's part of the explicit premise of the thought experiment.

• naasking 4y ago
  That Mary has all factual knowledge is a premise, the conclusion that she could deduce her qualia does not necessarily follow, and you have provided no proof demonstrating that it follows
  • pdonis 4y ago
    > That Mary has all factual knowledge is a premise, the conclusion that she could deduce her qualia does not necessarily follow It's not a conclusion; to a physicalist, it's part of the premise, since knowledge of her qualia is "factual knowledge". You can't just declare by fiat that this is false; that's a circular argument, as I have already said multiple times. > you have provided no proof The burden of proof is on you, not me; if you want to make an argument based on the claim that knowledge of qualia is not "factual knowledge", then you have to prove that it isn't. You can't just declare it by fiat. I understand that non-physicalists, like you and Jackson, believe that knowledge of qualia is not "factual knowledge". But physicalists, like me and Dennett, disagree. Given that disagreement, you can't make your belief a premise of an argument and expect me to accept it. All you're doing is restating your position. Fine, I understand that's your position. But it's not the same as giving an actual argument for it based on premises that I must accept.