I am conceiving of a world that is just like this one in all non-physical respects except that it lacks consciousness. Therefore dualism is false.
Does anyone think that this is agood argument? I do, and I am sure that the world is conceivable, so sorry guys.
Richard Brown 
The argument is just as good as the one the dualists present. That is, debatable, since it is purely theoretical and “a priori”. Their conceptions and imaginations are just different than yours. IMHO, everything that the mind can produce is imaginable, so it is also conceivable. That doesn’t mean it is possible in reality, though! Possibility of something in realty can only be established by evidence actual existence, not by “a priori” reasoning.
My suggestion would be that in stead of stead of shouting at each other from the philosopher’s armchair, we should investigate reality more though scientifically rigorous research. We should attempt to construct consciousness in computers to see what factors we might be overlooking. Especially those who are supposed to be doing research on consciousness should not waste their time and our tax money on theoretical angel/pin debates ! 😉
“Does anyone think that this is a good argument?”
Nope.
Beoran,
I agree with all that you have said except that these things are really conceivable. What is conceivable is determined by what s actual, so until we do some investigation we won’t know what is really conceivable and what isn’t. So one of us is really conceiving something, the other mistakenly thinks they are conceiving something that they are not.
RC, see the most recent post for my reply.
“Does anyone think that this is a good argument?”
‘Nope.’
trust a zombie philosopher to answer a argument about what anyone thinks with No and a reference to themselves.
Richard,
I think I can see your point, however, I guess it’s just about our semantics.
From wiktionary:
conceivable
1. Capable of being conceived or imagined; possible; credible; thinkable.
I’d go with the “capable of being imagined” definition. I can imagine many things that are not actual at all. (Maybe that is evidence that I’m not a zombie?) 🙂
I think that I would call what you call “concievable” simply “possible”. Once something actually happened at least once in reality, it might be possible for it to happen again. Then again, enlish is not my native language.
[…] In an earlier post I suggested the idea of a non-physical, or reverse-zombie. A reverse-zombie is a creature who is identical to me in all non-physical ways and which lacks conscious experience. Since reverse-zombies are conceivable Dualism is false. This is the zombie argument against dualism. […]
[…] Dualism, and Reduction In some earlier posts (Non-Physical Zombies, How Not to Imagine Zombies, Beating an Undead Horse) I introduced and defended a parody zombie […]
[…] claim that he could conceive of the zombie world realy was, I introduced the non-physical zombies (here, here and here). Of course RC disagreed that the reverse-zombie argument worked, but he was wrong […]
[…] if he would just let the posts speak for themselves)…I will reproduce it here. 1. RB’s Non-Physical Zombies parody argument, and my initial response: how to imagine […]
[…] Around the philosophy blogosphere there have been some pretty heated exchanges recently, witness this and this and this and this and this. It got me thinking about how we do […]