[atdixon]

> We don’t have a word for it because we don’t see that color.

I think you’re missing the argument.

We can easily assign words to things we know exist. That’s not the issue.

When we define things (like “naturalism”) we are invoking symbols and their semantics, all the stuff Mary presumably has access to in her room.

In her room, Mary already understands subjective experience, the brain mechanics behind it, etc.

The realization that there is more outside of Mary’s room suggests that our conceptualizations are limited / not accurate.

If that’s the agreed case how can anyone cling to a universal “naturalism” with a straight face?

With Mary’s room, haven’t we already accepted that formal statements are incomplete - and therefore would be silly to call universal?

[gpderetta]

Words don't excite the same bits of our brains as other physical experiences, so full knowledge of red through words and higher level thoughts is not enough for Mary. But assuming she has perfect knowledge of the the interaction of red wavelength with the eye and perfect knowledge of how the sensory input interacts with her brain, she could stick theoretically optimal electrodes in exactly the right places (or specifically tailored psychedelic drugs) and virtually experience and learn about red before actually seeing it.