The Knowledge Argument Proposed By Frank Jackson

The point of this paper is to show what the Knowledge Argument is, the two premises it contains, and its conclusion. Also I will explain one objection it holds. Lastly, I will explain how the objection fails to succeed its point in contradicting the Knowledge Argument. The Knowledge Argument proposed by Frank Jackson is about Mary, a scientist that is brilliant and understands and knows everything about neural science and physics. This takes place in the future where she is held in a black and white room where all she ever sees is black and white. Mary has never seen a red apple, and one day they finally let her out of the black and white room and she gets to see a red apple. From this experiment a question arises which is whether or not
In the future everything can be explained by science and Mary being a neurophysiologist of vision lets her understand how seeing colors can be explained by the wavelengths coming into the retina. She also knows what happens in the neural system that makes us say "red." Premise 2 states that after Mary left the room she learns a new fact and that fact has to do with her seeing the color red as a conscious state. When Mary perceives the color red there is a new sensation of seeing that color, something she didn’t know. The sensation she gains is a new fact she did not know before, therefore she learns something new. The two premises conclude that there is a fact that is not a physical fact but a conscious fact. This would lead us to believe that Physicalism is false. In order to come to this conclusion neither premise can deny Physicalism alone. If Mary knows all the relevant physical facts and after leaving the room she learns a new fact, a conscious state means that Mary did not actually know everything but instead is missing certain unexplainable facts. There is a gap that Physcialism cannot explain and in this gap is where conscious states fall. Dualism explains this gap with laws that explain brain states to conscious
Her experiencing the color red does not increase her knowledge it is only a new experience that she receives. The argument being made here is that she does not seem to learn a new fact, but is now able to explain it a new way. The statement "knowledge by acquaintance" is the same as "knowledge by description" explains that when she was in the room she knew how red was like by the description (Fesser 2005, p.98-99). Once she was able to see the color red she just became acquainted with the facts she already knew. Mary is learning a new way to explain an old fact she had already learned in the black and white room. Since she already knew how the color red is formed she knows how red is. It is plausible because Mary knows how the color is formed and she can simply stimulate the color red. A Physicalist would choose to believe this objection because there is no way that anything she already has knowledge about can become a new fact. Also they think it is impossible for anything non-physical to explain what Mary is going