So, for a more complete argument, he could have directly addressed the idea of the “hard problem of consciousness” and its relationship to empirical science.
He could have, but, logically speaking, he doesn’t need to. If he rejects the premise A1, he can then reject the conclusion as well, even if the reason A2 is logically valid—since rejecting A1 renders the conclusion unsound.
He could have, but, logically speaking, he doesn’t need to. If he rejects the premise A1, he can then reject the conclusion as well, even if the reason A2 is logically valid—since rejecting A1 renders the conclusion unsound.