Abstract

In the last decade, some viable materialist accounts of how to overcome Frank Jackson's powerful Knowledge Argument has been elaborated into such an extent that even Jackson himself has changed sides and joined its critics. In order to rehabilitate its force and importance, George Graham and Terence Horgan have redefined the original argument and exploited it against theories that reply to Knowledge Argument with a mode of presentation replies (using Michael Tye's representational theory of mind as an example). The message of this paper is that Graham and Horgan do not succeed in their task, since their view of Tye's theory is inadequate and because the intuitive thrust of their argument is derived from Joseph Levine's explanatory gap -argument that Tye has already successfully met.