Right. And I reject that. My previous answer still stands: phenomena are real, epiphenomena are not. Phenomena can be ojbective, independent of any perspective (or necessarily extant in any possible world).
On 9/19/21 12:26 PM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote: > Get out your steelman kit, because I absolutely DON’T believe that an > epiphenomenon is a thing. What I do think is that every thing is both > phenomenon and epiphenomenon depending on how we look it, depending on the > interpretant we bring to bear. So that the smoke cloud is llama shape is > epiphenomenal with respect to the development of the cloud unless on > considers that the shading provided by a llama shaped cloud might effect the > development of the fire that makes the smoke. > I think many important arguments concern whether some consequence is > phenomenal or epiphenomoenal. Consider the concept of collateral damage. > What's a few children when will killed a thousand terriorists with the same > policy. Well, five years later when you are withdrawing your troops under a > hail of gunfire, you discover that there was nothing collateral about that > damage except in the very narrow frame that bounded your thought. Nick > -- "Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie." ☤>$ uǝlƃ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
