Talk:Epiphenomenon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Um, I don't think any doctor anywhere would ask a client "if he noticed any epiphenomena". I think the word epiphenomena should be used in the sentence parenthetically next to an equivalent expression in the vernacular. Unless I hear otherwise in a few days, I intend to edit that.
Also, the link is dead.
jtvisona 091304
- Your few days have passed, so I'll just go ahead and edit (I think the example sentence can go altogether, though it did give me a good chuckle). The external link is just an possible instance of an epiphenomenon; it wouldn't be very appropriate even if it were live. Removed. JRM 15:22, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
Note that I am not an expert in either medicine or philosophy, so if I'm talking completely out of my backside with the new edits, correct me with impunity. JRM 15:22, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
This view faces heavy criticism. One argument is that, if these epiphenomena exist, then how can they be known about? They have no effects at all, and the only way to know about something is through its effects. The response is that the epiphenomenon can be traced back to its cause, which then has a measurable and distinct effect. This response is similar to the criticism that the mental must have physical effects because it is pain which causes us to go "it hurts!" An epiphenomenalist argues that this is false. Brain processes cause both the pain and the action of us saying "It hurts!" The pain doesn't cause the action. Another objection is that, since early organisms don't have epiphenomena, they must have evolved. But how can that be, if they have no physical advantages? The answer is that epiphenomena are simply by-products, and simply evolved necessarily at the same time as more complex brain processes, which are advantageous.
This section is going to have to be pretty heavily cleaned up before it gets into the article. I'm no expert, but certain things here don't seem to make any sense. The "criticism" sounds like it's talking to itself. --Mr. Billion 16:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- The exposition is basically correct. There are more details in Epiphenomenalism and the two first external links of that article. This is famously discussed also in Frank Jackson's essay "Epiphenomenal Qualia". Andres (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It was probably first mentioned by T. H. Huxley in 1874.
- What is meant here? Huxley doesn't use the word "epiphenomenalism" but suggests a version of epiphenomenalism. Definitely he wasn't the first to suggest any version of epiphenomenalism. Or is it meant he was the first to discuss epiphenomenalism as a philosophical position? This should be made clear. Andres (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
