On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable >> effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain >> why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. >> > > On the contrary, if consciousness were an epiphenomenon that would explain > why it evolved: it is a necessary side effect of intelligent behaviour, > and was not developed as a separate, useless add-on. > > If consciousness is a side-effect that has no other effects, then where is the information coming from when a person articulates something about their conscious experience? If consciousness itself has no effects at all, then how did the theory of epiphenomenalism come to be shared beyond the conscious mind that first conceived of it? Wouldn't such a theory necessarily be private and unsharable if consciousness has no effects? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
