On 2/3/2015 2:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[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?
As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon necessarily accompanies the phenomenon. In the case of consciousness it's essentially denying the possibility of a philosophical zombie.
Brent -- 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.
