As I wrote in my last reading response I mentioned that I found the way Stoljar differentiates between o and t-type physicalism confusing. Although this has since been cleared up some I still cannot quite reconcile myself to the idea of o-type physicalism being physicalism. Brittany did a great job of showing us how Stoljar responds to the arguments against o-type physicalism actually being physicalism. I still have my doubts about what Stoljar says, mostly because I myself fins issue with physicalism itself. Chalmer’s claims of o-type physicalism being panpsychism are something I would like to explore more mostly because I do think that Chalmers might be on to something in regards to the differentiation between the two. This is mostly due to the fact that even after reading all of these writings I find the difference between o and t-type to be small at best and that in many ways one can say they are almost the same thing just that Stoljar has chosen his words very carefully so as to be able to say that there is a difference. When we read Chalmers taxonomy I found myself drawn to the dualism argument that Chalmers put forward. What I wonder then is how Stoljar would respond to dualism in contrast to physicalism. Would he be able to respond to Chalmers idea of dualism or would he just dismiss it entirely?