On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4 February 2015 at 09:26, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch <[email protected]> > 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? > > My position is that if physics is causally closed, then ipso facto > consciousness is epiphenomenal. Otherwise, you would be able to devise > a test to determine if a given system is conscious. > Why do you presume such a test is not possible? 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
