Jim,

I’m sure you are right. But this gives rise to two difficulties for me. First, how can I (or we) re-write premise (2) in such a way as to make it accurately express Chalmers claim– no misleading shorthand? Second, is there some way we can fix up my duck story so as to make it both comprehensible, and faithful to Chalmers view?

Premise (2’) There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours in which (all of) the positive facts about (particular occurrences of?) phenomenal consciousness that hold in the actual world are false. (Something like that?)

[One can see why Chalmers did not put it that way.]

The Duck Story:

As things actually are I am watching a duck swimming on a pond. Not only that but I am in a phenomenal state associated with my duck watching.  That is to say, [roughly] there is something it is like for me to be watching the duck in this way [?}

Help!