Argument against the conceivability( 2) The second idea is Wittgenstein's private language argument. Although not crudely verificationistic, it depends on the assumption that in order for words to be meaningful, their use must be open to public checking If sound, therefore, it would seem to prove that we cannot talk about qualia in the ways that defenders of the zombie possibility think we can; the checkability assumption therefore also seems question-begging in this context Or in another way, "Zombies are conceivable"is meaningless because the very statement is not checkable in the public square. So, it should be someone's private language. But Wittgenstein has told us that private language is impossible.• The second idea is Wittgenstein's ‘private language argument’. Although not crudely verificationistic, it depends on the assumption that in order for words to be meaningful, their use must be open to public checking. If sound, therefore, it would seem to prove that we cannot talk about qualia in the ways that defenders of the zombie possibility think we can; the checkability assumption therefore also seems question-begging in this context. • Or in another way, “Zombies are conceivable” is meaningless because the very statement is not checkable in the public square. So, it should be someone’s private language. But Wittgenstein has told us that private language is impossible