Sam,

I do not see where my criticism of your paper fails.  If you have time, I would appreciate a few words about where you think I have gone astray.

Also, thanks for taking the time to comment on my argument for the ability hypothesis.  I'm sorry you didn't find it persuasive.  I would like to clean it up a bit and perhaps make it stronger, though I think that, even in its current formulation, its strengths outweigh its weaknesses.

About the date-cake argument, it seems to be saying, among other things:  (a) one could argue that making a date cake is a nut-free operation; (b) so far, we do not know if date cakes are really nut-free--i.e., the argument that making date cakes is nut-free has not been proved.  We can only be agnostic about whether or not date cakes are nut-free.  I interpreted this as meaning that we can only be agnostic about whether or not Mary's new abilities are free of factual information.  I must have been mistaken, since that is clearly not what you meant.  In any case, I don't see this as having any consequence for the argument in your paper.

Finally, about etiquette.  I am sorry if any of my comments seem inappropriate or offensive to you.  I'd like to clarify my intentions, in case there was any misunderstanding.

First, you made a point about your bibliography, which must have been a response to my comment about the need to survey the literature.  While you do mention several instantiations of the ability hypothesis, you do so only to construct a general framework for discussing it, and then proceed to argue that the ability hypothesis, as a general strategy, does not address the relevant issues raised by the knowledge argument.  You seem to take it as a given that the ability hypothesis merely claims, and does not demonstrate, that Mary's newfound abilities do not involve new factual knowledge.  But haven't arguments have been put forward aimed at demonstrating that Mary's new abilities do not involve new factual knowledge?  Perhaps the arguments are all flawed, and a different survey of the literature might show that.  (And, if they are all flawed, wouldn't the correct conclusion be the agnostic one, until it could be shown that new factual knowledge was in fact implied by Mary's new abilities?)

Second, you said you still do not see what 'error' your paper is making.  I was referring to the one evidenced in your transition from page 12 to page 13, as you illicitly shift from the phrase "phenomenal experience" to the phrase "phenomenal knowledge."  Your analysis seems to confuse phenomenal experience with phenomenal knowledge, leading to an incoherent distinction between phenomenal knowledge and abilities. I thought I had made that clear, and thus did not see the need to point it out again.

Third, you find my use of the word "salvage" inappropriate.  I suppose it can be difficult finding the right tone for discussions such as these.  I thought the word "salvage" was both accurate and respectful, and I am sorry if you found it offensive.  I will try to avoid using it in the future.

Regards,

Jason