From wikipedia: "The paper presents several difficulties posed by phenomenal consciousness, including the potential insolubility of the mind–body problem owing to "facts beyond the reach of human concepts", the limits of objectivity and reductionism, the "phenomenological features" of subjective experience, the limits of human imagination, and what it means to be a particular, conscious thing."
It would be taken for granted by nearly all participants in such bunfights that all of the others are familiar with that essay and the discussion it provoked.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
This cheap remark doesn't add anything to the discussion, especially considering who the author you're insulting is. Most of us will overlook a logical flaw or two to follow his big-picture thinking.
There is no logical flaw, these are factual.
You didn't add anything to the discussion either except critize me for calling the author out on their errors. What they wrote was far from correct and if I can't call it out then let's never call out fake info ever again. Why bother having a justice system?
As for who he is, I don't care. You're basically saying, if the POTUS says something completely false, you'd be OK with it because they are the president.