Abstract
In their paper “Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary” (2000), George Graham and Terence Horgan argue, contrary to a widespread view, that the so- called Knowledge Argument may after all pose a problem for certain materialist accounts of perceptual experience. I propose a reply to Graham and Horgan on the materialist’s behalf, making use of a distinction between knowing what it’s like to see something F and knowing how F things look.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Churchland, P.M. (1989) ‘Knowing Qualia: A Reply to Jackson’, in ANeurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science (pp. 67–76), Cambridge: MIT Press.
D.C. Dennett (1991) Consciousness Explained Little, Brown, Co Boston
G. Graham T. Horgan (2000) ArticleTitle‘Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary’ Philosophical Studies 99 59–87 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1018779425306
Jackson, F. (1982/1990): ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia’, Philosophical Quarterly 32, 127–136. Reprinted in W. Lycan (ed.), Mind and Cognition (pp. 440–446), Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
F. Jackson (1986) ArticleTitle‘What Mary Didn’t Know’ Journal of Philosophy 83 291–295
Lewis, D. (1990): ‘What Experience Teaches’, in W. Lycan (ed.), Mind and Cognition, Oxford: Blackwell.
L. Nemirow (1980) ArticleTitle‘Review of Thomas Nagel, Mortal Questions’ Philosophical Review 89 473–477
D. Raffman (1993) Language, Music, and Mind MIT Press/Bradford Books Cambridge
Raffman, D. (1995) ‘On the Persistence of Phenomenology’, in T. Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience (pp. 293-308), Schoningh Verlag.
M. Tye (1995) Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind MIT Press/Bradford Books Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raffman, D. Even zombies Can be Surprised: A Reply to Graham And Horgan. Philos Stud 122, 189–202 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-9462-x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-004-9462-x