Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The fact that Mary does not know proposition 13 does not ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→A posteriori physicalism can avoid the knowledge argument

    The fact that Mary does not know proposition 13 does not entail that proposition 13 is false

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A posteriori physicalism can avoid the knowledge argumentKnowing an a posteriori truth requires having the relevant experienceMary has not had and cannot have the experience required to know proposition 13The claim that complete physical information S entails phenomenal facts S* (prop...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Mary has not had and cannot have the experience required to know propo...80%A proposition that S does not believe cannot be a fact that S knows.78%A does not know that the proposition is true77%Identity with the wrong fact does not make a proposition true.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: physicalism
    View source passageHide passage
    A second response appeals to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori physicalism. As we saw above, the crucial claim of a posteriori physicalism is that (13) — i.e. the claim that S entails S* — is a posteriori. Since (13) is a posteriori, you would need certain experience to know it. But, it is argued, Mary has not had (and cannot have) the relevant experience. Hence she does not know (13). On the other hand, the mere fact that Mary has not had (and cannot have) the experience to know

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective