/lit/ - Literature

Oops wrong pic. Was meant to post Huxley, who came up with the term "conscious automata".

Replication crisis crushed it
None of the experimental data for epiphenomenalism actually replicated

>>17424261
Huh? What experimental data?

Knowing that most things brain researchers say don't just fall out of the research, and that the most thoroughgoing materialism and eliminativism delivers only promisory notes and remains irreflexive, we must continue investigating.

>>17424295
I know you hate stemlords or whatever but "brain researchers" is a strawman
Neuroscience has nothing to do with the philosophical, a priori discussion of mental causation.

>>17424245
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. And it doesn't explain anything.

>>17424331
I don't think you understand either epiphenomenalism or the post hoc argument.

>>17424245
Not literature

>>17424389
See >>17424257
Huxley wrote a lot on philosophy of mind and advanced this theory.

jesus christ these replies. does anyone on this board know what they fuck they're talking about?

>>17424394
Not a philosophy board. You are looking for /his/.

>>17424405
Read the sticky.

>>17424409
You should read the sticky

>>17424303
I don't believe in "philosophy of mind" as a self-contained topic distinct from what say, Hegel is doing. I think many materialists will listen uncritically to what some neuroscientists say and in general have a poor understanding of the history of science that enables an actually mythical worldview of background materialism. I engaged in an argument a while ago on here with an epiphenomenalist and it seemed to come down to his belief that a complete "physical" description of reality has no need for any first-personal aspect to account for even our behavior. He seemed to agree with me that something was missing but apparently this was an extra-scientific concern for him. To me this is already below someone like Hegel.

>>17424423
>le dumb materialist reductionist doesn't understand philosophy!
No offence but this is what happens when you learn about philosophy from Reddit and YouTube. The "materialist" position (nobody calls it materialism, it's physicalism) is not one that any modern philosopher adopts. You're strawmanning hard again.

This thread is worthless. I give up asking here.

>>17424423
We just need a complete description and some kind of translator into a mental state. Like click a button and you get to feel what the neurons of someone else are doing.
Of course, that would mean becoming someone else for a while, and how would memory even pass over? Sneed.

>>17424423
Namedropping Hegel twice and being this wrong, you obviously haven't read him.

>>17424245
>Yet it seems to bother everyone at a visceral level.
I noticed that too when I ran into it. I find it obviously true and none of the counter-arguments are compelling. I assume it's the usual sperging out from brainlet continental metaphysicians who think this invalidates their poor understanding of the mind.

>>17424388
>physical event, therefore mental event
Show me the steps in between. If you can't, it doesn't solve shit. Epiphenominalism is cope implied by materialist ontology.

>>17424245
There are a few issues with epiphenomenalism: one major one is that it makes our knowledge about our own phenomenal states mysterious, since they are acausal. We can put this as saying that our knowledge of such states appears epistemically lucky, since in nearby possible worlds where it is false that we have phenomenal states we would still think we know we do, so such claims to knowledge wouldn't be sensitive to truth.

>>17424433
Wait, are you claiming that modern philosophers aren't by and large physicalists? It's not an overwhelming majority by any means, but a majority of contemporary philosophers are physicalists of some kind or another. Maybe not reductionists, though.

>>17424245
How do you answer this OP

>A number of scientists and philosophers, including William James, Karl Popper, John C. Eccles and Donald Symons, dismiss epiphenomenalism from an evolutionary perspective.[21][22][23][24][25] They point out that the view that mind is an epiphenomenon of brain activity is not consistent with evolutionary theory, because if mind were functionless, it would have disappeared long ago, as it would not have been favoured by evolution.