On 2/3/2015 2:26 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com
<mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto: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?
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 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.