On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/10/2015 5:29 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 5 February 2015 at 09:19, meekerdb <[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. > But in the epiphenomenon model, consciousness is the epiphenomenon and the phenomenal part of consciousness is its first-person aspect. 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.
