What Mary Didn T Know Summary

Jackson’s paper, “ What Mary Didn't Know” , is about a scientist Mary, who learns all the physical facts within the world from inside an isolated black-and-white room through a black and white TV. When she finally leaves the room, she experiences seeing a red tomato for the first time, and learns new phenomenal truths about what it is like to see the color red. The argument being will she learn something from the actual physical experience of seeing red, or is her prior knowledge enough to dismiss this experience. The knowledge argue infers that, contrary to physicalism, the complete physical truth is not the whole truth. Therefore, claiming all the physical facts of a phenomenon, without actually experiencing it is not enough. The physical truth does not …show more content…
Mary may have learned all the physical aspects of seeing red, but now Mary knows what red “is like” . This was a new experience that she never had before. Mary deciphered the fact is was an apple by all the facts and experiences she had available. It was as if she learned a new way to use these distinct pieces of information as holistic tool to create her own experience. Mary learned to put together all the pieces she had learned in the white and black room, and she combined it with her personal experience in order to understand her surroundings.
However, she may have had prior physical knowledge of what red is, but was that really enough to truly visualize and internalize the color red? This is the basis of the knowledge argument. It seems that the physical information Mary had was useful, but not enough to feel what red was like. Mary’s sensory experiences of red did indeed deepen her understanding of processing color and her surroundings. Therefore, the knowledge argument is relevant in this study, because physicalism only served so far as a tool for Mary, which proves experience is invaluable in