Implicitly included(describes whether S# is already contained within S): Present or contained within something even if not directly stated or obvious—like how the concept of 'parts' is implicitly included in the word 'puzzle.'
Independent claim(contrasts with S# being merely an expansion of S): A statement that stands on its own and cannot be derived from or reduced to other existing claims.
S (in this context)(stands for a total description of reality): A symbol used to represent a complete description or summary of everything about the world and how it works.
S# (in this context)(represents an allegedly independent claim or observation): A symbol representing something additional or derived from S—in this case, likely a specific fact or claim that supposedly goes beyond the original summary.
physicalism(The target position that the knowledge argument is designed to refute): The thesis that physical theory can in principle account for everything there is to know about the world
proposition(Used in the context of a semantic theory sensitive to differences in subject matter.): The content expressed by a sentence, individuated at least in part by the subject matter of the sentence and the contents of its subsentential expressions.

Chalmers' conceivability of philosophical zombies demonstrates that S can be tru...If S is complete, any further proposition S# that follows from the physical fact...If phenomenal concepts are irreducible, S# describing qualia introduces genuinel...Jackson's Mary thought experiment shows that a complete physical description S l...

+4 more

Phenomenal concepts like 'what it is like to see red' are not reducible to funct...Physicalism holds that the physical facts exhaust all facts about the world.

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: physicalism

View source passage

One the other hand, if physicalism is true, and S summarizes the total nature of the world then S# is already implicitly included in S. In other words, (15) is simply an expansion of (14). But if (15) is just an expansion of (14), then if (15) is a priori, (14) must also be a priori. But that means our initial assumption is false: (14) is not a necessary a posteriori truth after all (see Jackson 1998).

Extraction notes

Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

Details

Perspectives

3 (1 for, 2 against)

If physicalism is true and S summarizes the total nature of the world, then S# is already implicitly included in S, making the proposition S# merely an expansion of S rather than an independent claim.

Reasons For

Reasons Against

Next step

Similar