There is an ambiguity here, depending on what exactly is meant by “it seems”.
If we are talking about seeing some evidence of birds existing, then the argument is not circular, it is pointing to this evidence in the reality, which may or may not be enough to conclude that non-mammals exist. But neither this argument truly has the same structure as zombie argument.
If we are talking about being able to imagine that birds are possible, without any evidence, and thus concluding that birds are possible, then it would be structured as a zombie argument and be circular as you would have to smuggle in the assumption that your imagination correspond to reality in this specific case, namely that birds are indeed possible.
Let’s suppose that the zombie argument smuggles in the assumption that what you’re imagining is evidence of reality. Then the argument would look like this:
I can imagine zombies as possible.
My imagination is evidence of reality.
So I have evidence that zombies are possible.
The possibility of zombies is inconsistent with physicalism.
Therefore, I have evidence physicalism is false.
This still isn’t a circular argument. It’s just an argument with a false premise, namely premise 2.
More generally, if you think an argument lacks support, that doesn’t mean it’s circular.
Yes, you can remade a zombie argument so that it will not be circular and just be wrong or very weak. This isn’t the zombie argument in question, though.
There is an ambiguity here, depending on what exactly is meant by “it seems”.
If we are talking about seeing some evidence of birds existing, then the argument is not circular, it is pointing to this evidence in the reality, which may or may not be enough to conclude that non-mammals exist. But neither this argument truly has the same structure as zombie argument.
If we are talking about being able to imagine that birds are possible, without any evidence, and thus concluding that birds are possible, then it would be structured as a zombie argument and be circular as you would have to smuggle in the assumption that your imagination correspond to reality in this specific case, namely that birds are indeed possible.
Let’s suppose that the zombie argument smuggles in the assumption that what you’re imagining is evidence of reality. Then the argument would look like this:
I can imagine zombies as possible.
My imagination is evidence of reality.
So I have evidence that zombies are possible.
The possibility of zombies is inconsistent with physicalism.
Therefore, I have evidence physicalism is false.
This still isn’t a circular argument. It’s just an argument with a false premise, namely premise 2.
More generally, if you think an argument lacks support, that doesn’t mean it’s circular.
Yes, you can remade a zombie argument so that it will not be circular and just be wrong or very weak. This isn’t the zombie argument in question, though.
How would you interpret the zombie argument so that it’s circular? Can you lay it out explicitly like above?