Hi Peter

I am not an expert on the zombie debate. Frankly, I find the focus on things like zombies, swampmen, brains in vats etc in (analytic) philosophy pretty absurd and rather childish. To my mind, it is an indicator of just how far from real human concerns this brand of philosophy has managed to take itself.

But as I understand it, David Chalmers - who seems to be the chief zombie proponent - does argue that zombies are conceivable.  My own principal objection is that since a zombie is apparently defined as a human being minus consciousnesses, one would presumably need a robust and persuasive idea of what consciousness is in order to do the subtraction.  This point is not conceded. (!)  At that stage I just switch off.

I should add that I think the question of human consciousness itself is very important.  But the approach adopted in most analytic philosophy - as exemplified by the zombie debate - strikes me as a waste of time and effort. The fact that it seems to go around endlessly in unproductive circles is perhaps some evidence for this.

DA