The Knowledge Argument Analysis

661 Words3 Pages
The Knowledge Argument is an argument against the physicalist view on the mind body problem. The argument goes against the assumption that all of the facts in the world are physical facts. The physicalist answered the argument. The Knowledge Argument consists of the argument itself, the physicalist retort to the argument, and the problem with the physicalist retort. The Knowledge Argument is a simple objection to physicalism. The argument is very simply and thoroughly explained through an anecdote. Mary is in a black and white room her whole life, and she knows all the physical facts of the world. When she emerges from her room for the first time she learns a new fact, such as seeing red for the first time when she sees a red rose. Mary learns a new fact after leaving the room, proving there a more facts than just the physical facts, therefore physicalism is false. The Knowledge Argument shows that objective sciences cannot explain everything about our mental lives, given that the argument is true.…show more content…
The physicalists present three replies to the argument but one of their arguments is far better than the others. Their best argument is that Mary doesn’t learn a new fact she simply comes to think of something she already knew, in a new way. The best example of the retort is that Superman can fly. The old way of thinking is that Superman can fly and the new way of thinking is that Clark Kent can fly, because Clark Kent is Superman. The response is a very simple one to understand. The response is simply arguing that experiences are not necessary like physical facts in the world. According to the physicalist experiences are not required to be a person concerning the mind body problem. The physicalist makes a few good retorts to the Knowledge Argument but their best is that Mary doesn’t learn a new fact; she just views an old fact in a new

More about The Knowledge Argument Analysis

Open Document