This is of course true. The question for zombies isn’t just whether we could imagine them—I could imagine fermat’s last theorem being false, but it isn’t—but whether it’s metaphysically possible that they exist.
I can’t see the difference. What exactly “metaphysically possible” means?
But again, you could have some functional analogue that does the same physical thing that your consciousness does. Any physical affect that consciousness has on the world could be in theory caused by something else. If consciousness has an affect on the physical world, it’s no coincidence that a copy of consciousness would have to be hyper specific and cause you to talk about consciousness in exactly the same way.
If in other world something else causes all the things that consciousness causes in our world, all your thoughts about consciousness provide no evidence that we aren’t in fact in that other world.
there are lots of ways that specific dualists have experimentally tested their theories
The linked article uses a totally different meaning of “dualism”. EM fields are 100% physical.
Metaphysical possibility denotes whether something could actually occur. It’s a bit broader than logical possibility. The distinctions are a bit tricky and I’d recommend googling it if you’re interested to hear more—there are lots of commentators, so I’m leaving my comments brief.
My thoughts about consciousness—in the physical sense—don’t provide evidence for it, but consciousness which I directly access does.
EM fields are physical, but the claim is that the psychophysical laws would be empirically investigatable and may govern EM fields on dualism.
Random remarks about consciousness:
I can’t see the difference. What exactly “metaphysically possible” means?
If in other world something else causes all the things that consciousness causes in our world, all your thoughts about consciousness provide no evidence that we aren’t in fact in that other world.
The linked article uses a totally different meaning of “dualism”. EM fields are 100% physical.
Linked post uses non-physicalism in the proof of non-physicalism (point 2).
Metaphysical possibility denotes whether something could actually occur. It’s a bit broader than logical possibility. The distinctions are a bit tricky and I’d recommend googling it if you’re interested to hear more—there are lots of commentators, so I’m leaving my comments brief.
My thoughts about consciousness—in the physical sense—don’t provide evidence for it, but consciousness which I directly access does.
EM fields are physical, but the claim is that the psychophysical laws would be empirically investigatable and may govern EM fields on dualism.