But the logic remains the same, which means your claim at this stage is as equally valid as mine.
Perhaps a better angle would be to disprove the content rather than engage in witticisms alone.
I find your propositions are littered with some pretty basic errors, which I'll take the opportunity to go through.
I'll start with a request for elaboration on points (1) and (2) as (3) and (4) are dependent on them. Remember that both have to remain true with each other.
Proposition (5) is somewhat incorrect. Philosophical zombies themselves do not verify dualism as such, rather they are a falsification of physicalism. This can be used to support any number of varieties dualism, but it is not a proof of dualism.
Proposition (6) is thoroughly incorrect. Asserting dualism is "confused", is unhelpful, especially when you haven't clarified which form of dualism.
Also, the phrase reductio ad absurdum doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean that a proposition is incorrect because you, me or anyone else think the conclusions are absurd, but rather because they are logically absurd. Philosophical zombies have no logical absurdity about them.
Chalmers endorses panpsychism (a philosophical version of animism)
I would appreciate a citation for this. I am unfamiliar with Chalmers ever claiming that all objects have consciousness. At the very best you could claim that he advocates panprotoexperientialism, but then again, I suppose that we all do.
no subject
Perhaps a better angle would be to disprove the content rather than engage in witticisms alone.
I find your propositions are littered with some pretty basic errors, which I'll take the opportunity to go through.
I'll start with a request for elaboration on points (1) and (2) as (3) and (4) are dependent on them. Remember that both have to remain true with each other.
Proposition (5) is somewhat incorrect. Philosophical zombies themselves do not verify dualism as such, rather they are a falsification of physicalism. This can be used to support any number of varieties dualism, but it is not a proof of dualism.
Proposition (6) is thoroughly incorrect. Asserting dualism is "confused", is unhelpful, especially when you haven't clarified which form of dualism.
Also, the phrase reductio ad absurdum doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean that a proposition is incorrect because you, me or anyone else think the conclusions are absurd, but rather because they are logically absurd. Philosophical zombies have no logical absurdity about them.
Chalmers endorses panpsychism (a philosophical version of animism)
I would appreciate a citation for this. I am unfamiliar with Chalmers ever claiming that all objects have consciousness. At the very best you could claim that he advocates panprotoexperientialism, but then again, I suppose that we all do.