Jeremy Stangroom

@PhilosophyExp I disagree for the same reason that Frank Jackson changed his mind about epiphenomenalism.

@PhilosophyExp To be true in any reasonable sense something has to be the cause of true beliefs about it. Epiphenomenalism fails that test.

@sjzara That just means that epiphenomenalism threatens the possibility of knowedge - as it might well do. But doesn't rule it out.

@PhilosophyExp @sjzara I don't think epiphenomenalism needs "ruling out". It's a positive claim with absolutely no proof to back it up.

@Nazifpour @sjzara It does need ruling out if one's proof that dualism is false *doesn't* rule it out.

@PhilosophyExp @Nazifpour We disagree about what is needed to rule it out. In science, complete causal explanation rules out extras.

@PhilosophyExp @Nazifpour Science says physicalism can completely explain why one has a belief in epiphenomenalism. That's enough for me!

@PhilosophyExp @Nazifpour Epiphenomenalism is 'science+', but no-one has yet explained what the '+' adds in terms of reasons for belief.

@PhilosophyExp @sjzara Nor does it rule out (or make less probable) a "dualism" of physical laws and psychophysical bridge laws.

@Metamagician @PhilosophyExp Yes, it does rule that out, because there is no physical gap for such physical laws.

@sjzara @PhilosophyExp I don't see how anything you said would rule out the bridge laws or render them unnecessary. Maybe I'm thick, but...