Epiphenomenalism

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
19,141
I posted a question about epiphenomenalism over in the Science forum, but I don't want to hijack that thread by pressing the issue.

I've read three or four descriptions of epiphenomenalism in the past couple of days. The concept seems utterly incoherent. What am I missing?

~~ Paul
 
Philosophically speaking:
To me, its always sounded like epiphenomenalism is thought to explain human consciousness as a byproduct of neural brain activity.
 
epiphenomenalism

Paul,

Try a google on "Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy" and "epiphenomenalism" for a fair summary.

Regards.

Muck

p.s. If you've already researched it,apologies for wasting your time
 
Thanks, Yahweh and LMoG. Yes, it's incoherent.

There is something, call it consciousness, that is an epiphenomenon of the brain, but has no affect on the brain. Since it has no effect on the brain, we don't have any memories of the experience of it nor of anything else relating to it. Therefore we cannot think or talk about it. Therefore it is as good as nonexistent and there is no reason the concept of epiphenomenalism would ever have arisen.

~~ Paul
 
Paul,

I gather your chief interests lie elsewhere, but , if you want to spend a few dollars to find out about current ideas in the philosophy of mind , there is a "reader", "Mind and Cognition", edited by William Lycan and published by Blackwell.Physicalism,in one form or another , is well represented.

Regards.

Muck
 
Clearly, consciousness has some kind of effect on the brain, or else we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

I don't think that means it didn't arise 'by accident' as a result of a sufficiently complex brain though. If it did though, why we kept it is another matter.
 
Oh, sorry Dialectic, didn't mean to jump on you so.

What is it with philosophers? Do they just try to enumerate all possible philosophical concepts, regardless of coherence?

~~ Paul
 
Paul,

What is it with philosophers? Do they just try to enumerate all possible philosophical concepts, regardless of coherence?
Click to expand...

Basically, yes. It is all part of a desperate attempt to come up with a framework in which all of their beliefs can simultaneously be true.

That is what happens when you take the approach of trying to logically justify your beliefs, rather than using logic to determine what you should believe.

Some people are just always trying to ice-skate up-hill.

Dr. Stupid
 
Sockpuppet?

MRC Hans,

What have I stumbled into here?If I have achieved a record by being accused of sockpuppetry after a few posts,I'm not proud of it.After a few months' lurking,I can guess whose puppet you suppose me to be,and the implication is not flattering!

However, you may want to consider a few points:

1.I've posted 3 times on this thread; 1 joke and 2 references,both,I hope,offered courteously

2.One of my earliest posts was to Asthmatic Camel(on a thread he started about the value of philosophy) mentioning Russell and Popper with respect

3.My next post was to ask whether he had taken offence at a lighthearted comment in the first post(he had not) and to apologize if he had

4.I admire science as a rational enterprise, and regret deeply that some have tried to use arguments dredged up from the history of philosophy to discredit it.To do so without even trying to understand what scientists have to say , and why they think it worth saying ,is impertinent and foolish.

Please think it over.Does any of this seem,in substance or manner,the work of the puppetmaster?

Regards.

Muck
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Oh, sorry Dialectic, didn't mean to jump on you so.

What is it with philosophers? Do they just try to enumerate all possible philosophical concepts, regardless of coherence?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
Philosopher Yahweh will answer that question...

Yes, any concept we invent in our heads becomes philosophy, regardless of coherence. Philosophy is not based on science or empirical data, it is based entirely on logic.

When I debate, I first accept or deny (usually I do both) the claim using logic and general philosophies. Then I use what I know about to science to validate or invalidate the claim. Usually, science and philosophy work pretty well together in that manner.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Does that mean it doesn't have to be logical?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
All philosophy has to be logical. Any logical contradictions found turn that particular philosophy into a false adage.
 
Annoying challenge about physicalism

Epiphenomenalism is indeed an incoherent position, as I try to show on these pages:
Exit Epiphenomenalism (Please note the analytical argumentation, which should be independent from one's degree of skepticism on PSI-phenomena),
Why the Efficacy of Consciousness Cannot Be Limited to the Mind.

My argumentation has important implications for skepticism in that as soon as we accept the reality of consciousness, we must also admit that consciousness necessarily has an impact on our cognition. This impact is no less 'mysterious' than any kind of impact postulated by parapsychologists, which means we should basically be open-minded about their evidence rather than dismissing it out of hand. Any real impact of a non-physical consciousness on any part of reality implies that physicalism is simply wrong. Therefore, any type of skepticism which is based on physicalism and cannot be reconciled with the reality of psychogenic causality is misguided.
The only logically coherent alternative to the rational acceptance of at least some kind of psychogenic influence is that taken by Daniel C. Dennett, namely reductionism (the denial that there is an irreducible conscious mind). In fact, that position is held by the well-known skeptical parapsychologist Susan Blackmore . But one must admit it is rather surprising that skepticism about any impact of our irreducible conscious minds upon reality can only be coherently upheld within a reductionistic framework. Time to think the philosophical foundations of skepticism through I'd say!

By the way, inspired by James Randi's challenge and the counter-challenge by Victor Zammit , I opened a page on my website with a challenge to Dutch skeptics to show my argumentation against physicalism is incoherent (unlike the prizes of the other two challenges, the reward is in this case purely intellectual). I opened it on June 1st 2003 and still haven't received any reply that I was allowed to place on the site (permanently). Perhaps this is related to flaws in my communicative skills. But then again, that shouldn't prevent them from meeting such an important intellectual challenge! Or is this just the dumb, naive or even insane opinion of someone who still hasn't seen the light of all-round, non-zetetic skepticism :wink: ?

Titus Rivas
The Netherlands
 
Titus,

I am curious as to why you would think the rejection of epiphenomenalism has any negative connotations for either physicalism or skepticism. The view of the mind currently held by most psychologists and neuroscientists is that consciousness is reducible to physical processes in the brain. Epiphenomenalism is an intrinsically non-scientific position, and should never be taken seriously by anybody who considers himself a skeptic.

Dr. Stupid
 
Dutch skeptic, Kurtz, psychologists, most intellectuals I know

Well, Dr. Stupid,

I personally know of the case of an influential Dutch skeptic who is not a physicalist (I'm not allowed to reveal his name). Besides none other than Paul Kurtz has responded to an inquiry on my part saying that he was a "non-reductive physicalist" himself!

By the way, you're very wrong about 'most psychologists' being reductionists. I'm a graduate of theoretical psychology myself, and at the faculty I studied (not too long ago) most psychologists clearly seemed to agree that consciousness could not be reduced to the (non-conscious) workings of the brain.

Perhaps I'm being very naive about most (non-zetetic) skeptics. But most intellectuals I know (personally or through their works) don't find reductionism a scientific or even rational position at all, as it simply denies the obvious. That isn't acceptable science I would say. At least not in any definition I was taught.

Does that answer your question?

Best wishes,

Titus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom