The argument seems to assume that "knowledge" is some sort of indivisible base class. "Knowledge" is shorthand for memories, compressed sensory input videos (plus smell, touch, and taste) of finite length in the brain. You can remember facts (beliefs, really) about wavelengths, and also the experience (believed experience, really) of sight. Not sure what there is to write a book about.
These philosophers seem to think that humans matter a lot more than those who "subscribe" to physicalism (if you can call believing in the least extraordinary option "subscribing") do. I don't care about all of those "the book is red" koans; "red" is just a word, and words are invented, primarily for convenience.
The only thing I find a bit hard to get from physicalism is why one's locus of consciousness happens to be in the brain that it is in. If the time I come into the world as a baby is "random", what "makes" it random?
These philosophers seem to think that humans matter a lot more than those who "subscribe" to physicalism (if you can call believing in the least extraordinary option "subscribing") do. I don't care about all of those "the book is red" koans; "red" is just a word, and words are invented, primarily for convenience.
The only thing I find a bit hard to get from physicalism is why one's locus of consciousness happens to be in the brain that it is in. If the time I come into the world as a baby is "random", what "makes" it random?