Eliezer quoted the SEP entry as support for his position and you, in your response, cut off the part of said quote which contained the support and only responded to the remaining part which did not contain the supporting point (eg the key words: causal closure). This seems bad-faith to me even though I think you're right that Eliezer did not account for interactionist dualism (though I disagree that it is necessarily a critical error, I don't think one should be expected to note every possibilty no matter how low prob in the course of an argumentation.)
Eliezer quoted the SEP entry as support for his position and you, in your response, cut off the part of said quote which contained the support and only responded to the remaining part which did not contain the supporting point (eg the key words: causal closure). This seems bad-faith to me even though I think you're right that Eliezer did not account for interactionist dualism (though I disagree that it is necessarily a critical error, I don't think one should be expected to note every possibilty no matter how low prob in the course of an argumentation.)