Hmm: you say “Chalmers denies that he’s an epiphenomenalist” and has a “core objection to interactionism”, but Chalmers said he endorses “the thesis (Z) that zombies are logically possible”, and Bentham’s Bulldog says the zombie argument is an argument for non-physicalism, which he implies means “Consciousness is its own separate thing that is not explainable just in terms of the way matter behaves” and which is subdivided into dualism (epiphenomenalism and interactionism) and “niche views”. Does Chalmers, then, endorse one of the “niche views” like “idealism and panpsychism”?
Not exactly, as Chalmers said:
substance dualism (in its epiphenomenalist and interactionist forms) and Russellian monism (in its panpsychist and panprotopsychist forms) are the two serious contenders in the metaphysics of consciousness, at least once one has given up on standard physicalism. (I divide my own credence fairly equally between them.)
So I’m pretty confused about what Chalmers’ opinion is. Maybe it changed over time? Even so, I think it’s pretty bad that when Chalmers tried to correct EY’s 2008 post 4 days after he posted it, EY not only didn’t understand Chalmers’ argument (rather, he argues that Chalmers was thinking incorrectly), he didn’t even take notice that Chalmers said he doesn’t believe what EY says he believes, so when he reposts nearly the same article 8 years later, he misrepresents Chalmers’ beliefs in the same way again.
Hmm: you say “Chalmers denies that he’s an epiphenomenalist” and has a “core objection to interactionism”, but Chalmers said he endorses “the thesis (Z) that zombies are logically possible”, and Bentham’s Bulldog says the zombie argument is an argument for non-physicalism, which he implies means “Consciousness is its own separate thing that is not explainable just in terms of the way matter behaves” and which is subdivided into dualism (epiphenomenalism and interactionism) and “niche views”. Does Chalmers, then, endorse one of the “niche views” like “idealism and panpsychism”?
Not exactly, as Chalmers said:
So I’m pretty confused about what Chalmers’ opinion is. Maybe it changed over time? Even so, I think it’s pretty bad that when Chalmers tried to correct EY’s 2008 post 4 days after he posted it, EY not only didn’t understand Chalmers’ argument (rather, he argues that Chalmers was thinking incorrectly), he didn’t even take notice that Chalmers said he doesn’t believe what EY says he believes, so when he reposts nearly the same article 8 years later, he misrepresents Chalmers’ beliefs in the same way again.