If consciousness is epiphenomenal, then what generated your question? I assume you are positing non-conscious people who ask all the same questions about consciousness that we do.
I don’t see a reason to rule out neuron-generated epiphenomena a priori—for example, the most elegant explanation of the phenomena might predict some entity that cannot be measured directly, and never affects anything measurable after its generation—but if they existed, we wouldn’t notice and wouldn’t ask questions about them. Therefore, whatever real thing it is you’re asking about cannot be an epiphenomenon.
If true consciousness is an epiphenomenon, then your question is not motivated by experiencing true consciousness. If your question is motivated by experiencing true consciousness, then true consciousness is not an epiphenomenon.
It started as a tiny set-piece speech about how consciousness couldn’t be an epiphenomenon, which is explicitly what the koan isn’t asking about. I had to rewrite several times before it seemed like the sort of thing that might actually engage the questioner.
I’m still not sure I actually answered the koan, though...
I think your answer is very much what the koan was meant to generate. Simply saying ‘No, I don’t a priori eliminate epiphenomenal theories’ seems like it’d miss the point entirely. You tackle the source of the concern or question, and conclude with a very good “If A, B, if ¬A, C” statement that easily follows from your arguments.
More importantly, your answer seems to completely reduce the problem and dissolve the question.
If consciousness is epiphenomenal, then what generated your question? I assume you are positing non-conscious people who ask all the same questions about consciousness that we do.
I don’t see a reason to rule out neuron-generated epiphenomena a priori—for example, the most elegant explanation of the phenomena might predict some entity that cannot be measured directly, and never affects anything measurable after its generation—but if they existed, we wouldn’t notice and wouldn’t ask questions about them. Therefore, whatever real thing it is you’re asking about cannot be an epiphenomenon.
If true consciousness is an epiphenomenon, then your question is not motivated by experiencing true consciousness. If your question is motivated by experiencing true consciousness, then true consciousness is not an epiphenomenon.
I like your koan responses. They seem like the sort of thinking and arguments that could actually be useful in a discussion, too.
Thanks.
It started as a tiny set-piece speech about how consciousness couldn’t be an epiphenomenon, which is explicitly what the koan isn’t asking about. I had to rewrite several times before it seemed like the sort of thing that might actually engage the questioner.
I’m still not sure I actually answered the koan, though...
I think your answer is very much what the koan was meant to generate. Simply saying ‘No, I don’t a priori eliminate epiphenomenal theories’ seems like it’d miss the point entirely. You tackle the source of the concern or question, and conclude with a very good “If A, B, if ¬A, C” statement that easily follows from your arguments.
More importantly, your answer seems to completely reduce the problem and dissolve the question.