>But they are not if the premises are true.
you have just proven that you don't understand the concept of validity in logic. All of the premises in an argument can be false while the form of the argument is still valid. Here's an example from my old logic textbook:
P1. all four-legged creatures have wings.
P2. all spiders have exactly four legs
C. all spiders have wings
Source: Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2011). Introduction to Logic (14th ed.) p. 29. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
This is indeed a valid argument. The conclusion does indeed follow logically from the premises, this is a valid inference. The only problem is the premises are false, so the this fails to qualify as a sound argument.
>the fallacy of four terms
that is itself a fallacy of equivocation, but you're wrong this isn't an example of the fallacy of four terms. There's only 3 terms here: bats, animals, and wooden objects. You should learn how to count.
>clarify the conclusion
are you saying you simply can't comprehend consciousness being irreducible here?
>I want more clarify!
>fuck your citations!
what do you want from me? You want more info, I give it, so you freak out and start swearing? you okay, bro?
You have as I demonstrated earlier with a direct quote from you, just be more careful with your language is all.
>You've shown no contradiction
I have indeed and so have others. You say we have a body, not that we are the body. You don't think the subject is the object, you think there's the subject and the object. that's dualism.
>I never said that.
I did, i quoted you directly earlier. apparently "you have arrangements of matter"