What Mary Didn't Know (1986) [pdf]
Related to this would be Nagel&#x27;s paper, &quot;What Is It Like to Be a Bat?&quot; We can&#x27;t say what sort of echolocation sensation a bat has anymore than Mary can say what a color looks like before she leaves the black and white room. We&#x27;re in the same position when it comes to bird vision. We can&#x27;t say what the world would look like with four primary colors. What does that fourth primary color look like? We don&#x27;t have a word for it because we don&#x27;t see that color.<p>Or for that matter, what would the rest of the EM spectrum look like if we could see it all? What would a scientific theory that could answer these sorts of questions look like?<p>Saying physicalism is false because it can&#x27;t answer the questions above is not to say naturalism is false. There&#x27;s no magic or supernatural stuff here. It just means our scientific description of the world lacks the subjective. There is a fundamental epistemological limit to our ability to know how to combine the two. It doesn&#x27;t mean the world itself has such a division. We just can&#x27;t cognate how to reconcile the two.