State what Kiymaz calls “The Knowledge Argument.” Then state one of the objecti

State what Kiymaz calls “The Knowledge
Argument.” Then state one of the objections to it that Kiymaz discusses and say
what he thinks the problem with the objection is.
Times new roman 12pt double spaced
Below is a link to the reading and some information I picked out
The Knowledge Argument Against Physicalism
“Mary is a brilliant
super-scientist who has never left her black-and-white room, in which she has
never seen colors. She has complete physical knowledge, that is, scientific
knowledge expressible in physical and functional terms, about human color vision
from books and black-and-white television. So, she knows every physical fact about human color
vision.
One day, however, she leaves
the room and sees a red tomato (she knows that tomatoes are red). She exclaims
“This is what it is like to see
red! This is what people experience when
they see red!”
According to the ability hypothesis, Mary
does learn something when she sees red, however, what she learns is not a
new fact, but it is know-how; she just acquires new
cognitive abilities. Knowing what it is like to have a certain experience, on
this view, consists in the possession of the abilities to recognize, imagine,
and remember the relevant experience. If what Mary learns is just know-how,
which doesn’t involve a new truth, then her pre-release knowledge can still be
complete.[5]
By analogy, consider that Mary has complete scientific knowledge
about swimming. But if she leaves the room and learns how to swim, that doesn’t
mean that her scientific knowledge about swimming was incomplete: by learning
how to swim she didn’t learn a new fact, she just acquired an ability.
A problem with the ability hypothesis, however, is that Mary does
seem to learn a new truth when she sees red, beyond mere know-how. When she
says “This is what people experience when they see red!” she states
a true belief, which she didn’t have before seeing a red tomato.”