On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >> My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless to >> ask why bodies emit utterances referring to the epiphenomenon. > > > > Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is > consciousness is a necessary side, and real, effect of the brain activity. > So why a body could not refer to it meaningfully?
It's not that which would be meaningless: it would be meaningless to ask how a body could refer to an epiphenomenon, David's initial question. > Ah, but then it looks like if there is a two way road, and consciousness is > only a phenomenon. A quite peculiar one, as it relates 3p and 1p, but still > a phenomenon, and it this leads to make physics also a 1p phenomenon, why > not? > > Why do you think we gain by making consciousness into an epiphenomenon? We don't have to explain why it apparently has no effect on matter yet we can still refer to it. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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/groups/opt_out.
