Is Epiphenomenalism Irrational?

[The Thinker]

No Thinker, I asked how exactly does our conscious understanding play a role? What does it do?

Play a role in what? Consciousness allows us a subjective understanding of what's going on. Consciousness does not have a causal impact on anything. That would violate the laws of physics and the burden of proof would be on you to show it.

The point of philosophical zombies is not whether they are metaphysically possible, but that logically you could not know. With Epiphenomenalism the person you are speaking with could have all the same rational reactions that one would expect without the same mental or conscious life that we experience.

And?

[seer]

Play a role in what? Consciousness allows us a subjective understanding of what's going on. Consciousness does not have a causal impact on anything. That would violate the laws of physics and the burden of proof would be on you to show it.

If consciousness has no causal effect then it has no causal effect even on subjective understanding, or knowledge. Again back to a point that you seemed to take exception with:

If we have knowledge about epiphenomenalism, then we know about the existence of the mind, but if epiphenomenalism were correct, then we should not have any knowledge about the mind, as it does not affect anything physical.

And?

You were the one who brought up philosophical zombies.

[The Thinker]

If consciousness has no causal effect then it has no causal effect even on subjective understanding, or knowledge. Again back to a point that you seemed to take exception with:

We're going around in circles. Once again, consciousness does not need to have a causal effect on the physical world in order for us to be able to understand things. The brain is processing a stream of data, and that is what causes consciousness. And past brain states effect future brain states. Consciousness cannot have a causal effect because that would violate the laws of physics just as I've been telling you.

Your author is assuming a dualistic ontology and mistakenly ascribing epiphenominalism as incoherent. Either he doesn't understand it, or he's trying to lie. I'll brek down his whole quote for you.

If we have knowledge about epiphenomenalism,

That knowledge is a brain state, which is a physical thing that has physical effects. It causes your conscious awareness of epiphenomenalism.

then we know about the existence of the mind,

Yes, we "know" because we have the right brain state. Without the right brain state, you wouldn't know about epiphenomenalism.

but if epiphenomenalism were correct, then we should not have any knowledge about the mind, as it does not affect anything physical.

This makes no logical sense. If epiphenomenalism were correct, we should have knowledge about the mind, because that conscious knowledge would be caused by a brain state.

You were the one who brought up philosophical zombies.

You seemed to be implying that epiphenominalism would entail P-zombies.

[seer]

That knowledge is a brain state, which is a physical thing that has physical effects. It causes your conscious awareness of epiphenomenalism.

But our conscious awareness does nothing, it does not tell us whether we have genuine knowledge or not. Look at it this way, your brain causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is true, my brain causes me to believe that epiphenomenalism is false. Which one of us has true knowledge? Our conscious introspection or conscious rational deliberation do nothing to help us decide between the two. It would also apply to any "evidence" or any "conclusions" you bring to the table to support your position.

Yes, we "know" because we have the right brain state. Without the right brain state, you wouldn't know about epiphenomenalism.

That is the point - how do you know that you have the right brain state? Your conscious understanding does not tell us or help us.

[The Thinker]

But our conscious awareness does nothing, it does not tell us whether we have genuine knowledge or not. Look at it this way, your brain causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is true, my brain causes me to believe that epiphenomenalism is false. Which one of us has true knowledge? Our conscious introspection or conscious rational deliberation do nothing to help us decide between the two. It would also apply to any "evidence" or any "conclusions" you bring to the table to support your position.

It makes no difference on your view because on your view your soul causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is false, and my soul causes me to believe that epiphenomenalism is true. And also, conscious introspection doesn't mean you will be right, plenty of people "rationally" get things totally wrong. On epiphenominalism we find things out the same way you think you do on your view - by rational evaluation and testing against evidence. The rational evaluation and testing of the evidence is all part of the determined process. It makes absolutely no sense to believe that our consciousness isn't caused by data -- without that you would actually have no reason to believe anything is true.

What you still don't get and is that in order to have genuine knowledge of something that knowledge must be caused by something. That's the only way a rational universe can work. And only determinism can make that logical. Consider this:

Let's take a serious look at indeterminism. Suppose we had a dial that would let us change the level of determinism in the universe.

Turned all the way toward determinism, I reach up to pick an apple from an apple tree and now I have an apple in my hand.

But turn the dial a little bit toward indeterminism, and now when I pick the apple I will sometimes have an orange in my hand, or a pear.

Turn the dial a little further toward indeterminism and when I pick an apple I may have a kitten in my hand, or a pair of slippers, or an ostrich.

Turn the dial just a bit more and when I pick an apple, gravity reverses.

Determinism is not about a physical world. Determinism is about a rational world.

That is the point - how do you know that you have the right brain state? Your conscious understanding does not tell us or help us.

By rationally evaluating the data and testing the data against evidence. My conscious understanding does indeed tell me and help me whether my brain properly processed data correctly. That's what consciousness does.

And again you're in a hole. If you want to claim consciousness causes physical objects -- that is ruled out by science, plus LFW is incoherent. No one can control their thoughts. That is logically impossible. So your view is definitely false, regardless of what you think of my view. It's an antiquated relic of our past when we didn't know anything about how the world actually works. That's why the majority of neuroscientists and philosophers of mind take my view.

[seer]

It makes no difference on your view because on your view your soul causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is false, and my soul causes me to believe that epiphenomenalism is true. And also, conscious introspection doesn't mean you will be right, plenty of people "rationally" get things totally wrong. On epiphenominalism we find things out the same way you think you do on your view - by rational evaluation and testing against evidence. The rational evaluation and testing of the evidence is all part of the determined process. It makes absolutely no sense to believe that our consciousness isn't caused by data -- without that you would actually have no reason to believe anything is true.

Nonsense, in my world the conscious mind, conscious rational deliberation, the conscious agent/personality (which may well be the soul) applying conscious logical inference is what plays the key role. In your world they do not. You are a slave to whatever your brain happens to dictate that you believe - true or not. You have no control over rational evaluation or the testing of evidence, or what you consider evidence. And your conscious rational musings play no role, since in epiphenomenalism they have NO causal effect, including the causal effect of confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not. So much for "free thinking" atheists...

[The Thinker]

Nonsense, in my world the conscious mind, conscious rational deliberation, the conscious agent/personality (which may well be the soul) applying conscious logical inference is what plays the key role. In your world they do not.

That does not in any way save you from the problem you face, which is that your soul causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is false, and for me it's true. We cannot have control over our thoughts, it is logically impossible. And if your soul is not caused by anything, there is no way to rely on it to be rational.

You are a slave to whatever your brain happens to dictate that you believe - true or not.

That's true in any case. In your view you are a slave to the random fluctuations of what your soul causes you to believe since it is impossible to control your thoughts because libertarian free will is incoherent.

You have no control over rational evaluation or the testing of evidence, or what you consider evidence.

You don't have control over your thoughts either, and what your next thoughts is. On my view at least there is a causal connection between things, on your view there isn't, and so there can be no expectation of rationality.

And your conscious rational musings play no role, since in epiphenomenalism they have NO causal effect, including the causal effect of confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not.

It does play a role, because it allows us subjectivity. It doesn't need to have a causal role in order to a role. The brain, which causes consciousness, does indeed play a role and what it processes is consciousness. Confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not is done on my view - by the brain.

So much for "free thinking" atheists...

Free thinking never meant LFW, it meant free of silly, dogmatic religious/pseudo-scientific ways of thinking, like yours, which is incoherent and already falsified by science. That you still believe in it, while you can't even justify it, is a testament to how bad this way of faith-based thinking is.

[seer]

That does not in any way save you from the problem you face, which is that your soul causes you to believe that epiphenomenalism is false, and for me it's true. We cannot have control over our thoughts, it is logically impossible. And if your soul is not caused by anything, there is no way to rely on it to be rational.

Wrong Thinker, the soul is or could be the conscious mind, therefore rational deliberation and introspection play the key role. And whether you think my position is logical or not is immaterial, we know what must follow from yours.

That's true in any case. In your view you are a slave to the random fluctuations of what your soul causes you to believe since it is impossible to control your thoughts because libertarian free will is incoherent.

This itself is incoherent - how could you possibly know this is correct given epiphenomenalism?

Confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not is done on my view - by the brain.

Then epiphenomenalism is false, because rational deliberation would play a causal role in confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not. And when your conscious rational mind decides that something is false or true what does that effect? What does that lead too?

Free thinking never meant LFW, it meant free of silly, dogmatic religious/pseudo-scientific ways of thinking, like yours, which is incoherent and already falsified by science. That you still believe in it, while you can't even justify it, is a testament to how bad this way of faith-based thinking is.

Like we have a choice concerning faith based thinking in your world.

[The Thinker]

Wrong Thinker, the soul is or could be the conscious mind, therefore rational deliberation and introspection play the key role. And whether you think my position is logical or not is immaterial, we know what must follow from yours.

You actually don't know what follows from mine, since you've been wrong several times on this thread, and you have learning disability. It's expected, there is a common association of people with low intelligence with religious people: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations

You have no control over what your soul does so your whole view is itself incoherent because it relies on an incoherent concept: LFW.

This itself is incoherent - how could you possibly know this is correct given epiphenomenalism?

Because I've rationally thought about it. Duh.

And that means my brain processed the data correctly, which I can verify by testing it.

Then epiphenomenalism is false, because rational deliberation would play a causal role in confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not. And when your conscious rational mind decides that something is false or true what does that effect? What does that lead too?

This doesn't follow at all because once again you aren't understanding me. Rational deliberation is simply just the conscious side of brain processing. Think of them as two sides to the same coin. The brain side and the conscious side. If I say that rational deliberation plays a role, that rational deliberation is going on in the brain -- and the brain plays a role in everything. It's the "decider."

Like we have a choice concerning faith based thinking in your world.

Sadly, you are just the product (probably) of religious indoctrination and being feed bad arguments. That's why I've refuted pretty much all your views. What I suggest is that you keep an open mind and actually try to research views different from you, and stop believing things on faith and what you wish were true, and what makes you happy. Base them on evidence.

[seer]

You actually don't know what follows from mine, since you've been wrong several times on this thread, and you have learning disability. It's expected, there is a common association of people with low intelligence with religious people: The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations

Really?

You have no control over what your soul does so your whole view is itself incoherent because it relies on an incoherent concept: LFW.

Well first, Joel is doing a great job defending LFW, second, if my mind/personality is my soul then there is no problem. Conscious rational deliberation plays the key role in deciding what is true or not. Unlike your model where non-rational chemicals dictate what you are to believe - true or not.

Because I've rationally thought about it. Duh.

And that means my brain processed the data correctly, which I can verify by testing it.

But your thoughts play no role, and you have no control over what you see as evidence or how you process evidence. It is turtles all the way down...

This doesn't follow at all because once again you aren't understanding me. Rational deliberation is simply just the conscious side of brain processing. Think of them as two sides to the same coin. The brain side and the conscious side. If I say that rational deliberation plays a role, that rational deliberation is going on in the brain -- and the brain plays a role in everything. It's the "decider."

Nonsense, you said: Confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not is done on my view - by the brain.

So confirming knowledge is a causal effect of the mind, probably the most important causal effect, and that is the very thing that epiphenomenalism denies. Like you said, our conscious thoughts are no more than the steam off a steam engine - it does nothing, no causal effect at all.

Sadly, you are just the product (probably) of religious indoctrination and being feed bad arguments. That's why I've refuted pretty much all your views. What I suggest is that you keep an open mind and actually try to research views different from you, and stop believing things on faith and what you wish were true, and what makes you happy. Base them on evidence.

Sadly in your world I have no choice whatsoever, even when it comes to an open mind. But don't blame me - nature made me do it.

[The Thinker]

Really?

Yes.

Well first, Joel is doing a great job defending LFW,

No he isn't. His argument boils down to basically asserting we have LFW sometimes.

second, if my mind/personality is my soul then there is no problem. Conscious rational deliberation plays the key role in deciding what is true or not. Unlike your model where non-rational chemicals dictate what you are to believe - true or not.

Likewise, by brain is me. So there is no problem.

Conscious rational deliberation is not possible without a brain. If you were correct, I should be able to take a hammer and bash your brains in and you should be able to think perfectly. That is not the case and proves you are wrong.

But your thoughts play no role, and you have no control over what you see as evidence or how you process evidence. It is turtles all the way down...

Neither do you, since you have no control over your thoughts, because LFW is incoherent. In my view our thoughts are at least caused by something, and that's why they can have a rational connection to the external world. On your view that is not the case so you are actually unable to show how your view can be rational.

Nonsense, you said: Confirming knowledge or confirming what may be true or not is done on my view - by the brain.

So confirming knowledge is a causal effect of the mind, probably the most important causal effect, and that is the very thing that epiphenomenalism denies. Like you said, our conscious thoughts are no more than the steam off a steam engine - it does nothing, no causal effect at all.

There is no nonsense here. And there is no incoherency. Rational deliberation is done by the brain, and we experience it as consciousness. There is absolutely no incoherency there. You simply don't like epiphenominalism because you want it to be false - probably because you've been brainwashed by religion and antiquated thinking your whole life. You have to face the facts and stop living by faith. If you want me to believe thoughts (which aren't themselves caused by something physical) have a causal impact on physical matter, you will need to show me some evidence of that. Because we have lots and lots of evidence against that. You see, I arrived at epiphenominalism because of the evidence. But you live on faith - not evidence.

Your whole argument is an informal fallacy known as an appeal to consequences.

Sadly in your world I have no choice whatsoever, even when it comes to an open mind. But don't blame me - nature made me do it.

You don't have a choice regardless because it is logically impossible to control your thoughts. Logically prove this is not the case or admit it's a belief you take on faith.

[seer]

Neither do you, since you have no control over your thoughts, because LFW is incoherent. In my view our thoughts are at least caused by something, and that's why they can have a rational connection to the external world. On your view that is not the case so you are actually unable to show how your view can be rational.

Well that is the point Thinker, we are looking at two different views of the mind/body. Whether you believe that LFW incoherent or not we at least save conscious human rationality, conscious deliberation, and the conscious application of logical laws. You simply do not have that option.

There is no nonsense here. And there is no incoherency. Rational deliberation is done by the brain, and we experience it as consciousness. There is absolutely no incoherency there. You simply don't like epiphenominalism because you want it to be false - probably because you've been brainwashed by religion and antiquated thinking your whole life. You have to face the facts and stop living by faith. If you want me to believe thoughts (which aren't themselves caused by something physical) have a causal impact on physical matter, you will need to show me some evidence of that. Because we have lots and lots of evidence against that. You see, I arrived at epiphenominalism because of the evidence. But you live on faith - not evidence.

Really? Logically prove that your brain caused you to believe a truism here, that it hasn't deceived you. Logically prove that you are processing the evidence correctly. Or do you take it by faith?

[The Thinker]

Whether you believe that LFW incoherent or not we at least save conscious human rationality, conscious deliberation, and the conscious application of logical laws. You simply do not have that option.

Conscious human rationality, conscious deliberation, and the conscious application of logical laws exist on epiphenominalism. They are just caused by the brain. On your view they have no cause and something with no cause has no reason why it is rational.

Plus you've totally ignored all the lines of evidence that support my view - which you have not refuted, nor have you even supplied your own evidence that supports your view. Evidence doesn't matter to you it seems.

Really? Logically prove that your brain caused you to believe a truism here, that it hasn't deceived you. Logically prove that you are processing the evidence correctly. Or do you take it by faith?

Why should I logically prove anything when you've been saying for days that there is no logical justification for anything. Are you a hypocrite for demanding what you don't even think is possible? First you need to admit to me that you accept that logic works and it can lead to and prove correct answers.

[seer]

Why should I logically prove anything when you've been saying for days that there is no logical justification for anything. Are you a hypocrite for demanding what you don't even think is possible? First you need to admit to me that you accept that logic works and it can lead to and prove correct answers.

Well I'm glad you admit that you can't. But don't get me wrong, I see the appeal of your position - after all when you do wicked or immoral things it's not really your fault, you had no choice you were determined. Yes very appealing indeed.

[The Thinker]

Well I'm glad you admit that you can't. But don't get me wrong, I see the appeal of your position - after all when you do wicked or immoral things it's not really your fault, you had no choice you were determined. Yes very appealing indeed.

Well I'm glad you conceded that epiphenominalism isn't irrational.

The appeal of my position is based on good evidence, and you should accept good evidence regardless of whether you want it to be true or not, but of course you don't care about evidence.

Oh, and on Christianity when you do "wicked or immoral things" you don't have to pay the consequences because you are saved by faith and can scapegoat your punishment onto Jesus. So I can rape and murder 50 kids and all I have to do is accept Jesus as my savior and I'm clean.