On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch 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.So we all agree on this.?? Why aren't first person observable effects enough to discuss? I guess because if there are no third-person observable effects of consciousness, then I can't detect any other conscious entities to discuss the effects with...The epiphenomenon model says there are third-person observable effects of the phenomenon, which suffice for detecting other entities. Whether the other entities are really conscious or just faking it is a matter of inference.Did you mean to say "The epiphenomenon model says there are *no* third-person observable effects of the phenomenon" ?
Of course not. The phenomenon is what is observable, by definition. It's the epiphenomenon which is not third-person observable.
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.
