@PhilosophyExp Thanks for the explanation and the link Dr. Stangroom.
I always seem to learn something in our conversations. Cheers!
-
-
Replying to @SubManUSN
@SubManUSN No problem. But I should say I'm a long way from being an expert on the subject. A long way... not my field! :)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp Has@sapinker weighed in on the subject?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SubManUSN
@SubManUSN@sapinker Not sure, actually. Dennett has (he criticizes epiphenomenalism).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp It does seem to fit into an internal phenomenon I wrote about (but probably not well) http://wp.me/p3Jhro-2w1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SubManUSN
@PhilosophyExp Still some part of me finds the concept of epiphenomenalism abhorrent.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SubManUSN
@SubManUSN Right, which is the point of my original tweet. If it turned out to be incontrovertibly true. we might not want to go on about it1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp I can see the defense attorneys using it in cases where mens rea is required for there to be a crime. :-)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SubManUSN
@SubManUSN Indeed. Though hard determinism, plus the view it is incompatible with free will, does that job pretty well, anyway.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp I shan't bother you further, sir. Always a pleasure!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@SubManUSN No bother at all. Always a pleasure to chat. :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.