When you say "it's not a matter of logic but of fact", I presume you're addressing the comment in my camp description that "if there are no logically consistent grounds for denying minds to animal cells then why not to plant cells?"
What I'm trying to say is that the claim that individual cells might be associated with minds does not conflict with any known evidence. What are you saying the facts are in this case?
It is not a matter of logic but of fact.
Logic only rules out impossibilities such as square circles, it doesn't tell you whether unicorns exist, or whether brains are the only known organisations of matter that support consciousness.
The same error is made by Chalmers: just because a state of affairs is logically possible doesn't tell you whether it is in fact the case.