This seems to be more about a limitation of language than a problem with the logic. Using "knowledge" in both premises looks clumsy. But looking at it purely

This seems to be more about a limitation of language than a problem with the logic. Using "knowledge" in both premises looks clumsy. But looking at it purely conceptually, where Mary would intellectually understand the complete theory in the B&W room, and then gain new experiential insight when leaving the room, it seems to at least prove that experiential knowledge is inherently different than theoretical knowledge. That's more what confuses me about the structure of this argument, though - I would take the experiential insight to be more "physical". So I still don't understand what they mean by physicalism.