When i read and look what philosophers say and write, i notice they still take epiphenomenalism as a serious option, although they do not necessarily believe in it. In this video i try to show that even the possibility of epiphenomenalism is based on a mistake. Please comment!

Epiphenomenalsm, the belief that consciousness is an incidental side-effect ("epiphenomenon") or by-product of physical or mechanical reality. On this view, although mental events are in some sense real they have no causal efficacy in the material realm. This theme is put into effect in the year 2006, during the summer.

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 1. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 2. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 3. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 5. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 6. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

I have to careful about the tags for this one. The skit (by some guys in our class) is about interactionalism, occasionalism, epiphenomenalism, and monism. ahh what are they again??

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 8. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

A reply to npage85's second attempt to describe a method whereby we can distill the fundamental essence of a process/product. Summary: npage85s revised method for trying to get the the fundamentals of a process is still problematic because crucial patterns, like the electromagnet, are made up of specific details. If you freely vary these specific details these crucial patterns dissolve and the process no longer works.

Please watch Part 2 as well! ( : http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/619: A video where Plantinga gives defending his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN) http://www.youtube.com/user/Veritas48: Veritas48 youtube cite Naturalism -- the belief that there is no God or anything at all like him. Evolution -- "We human beings have arrived on the scene after millions, indeed, billions of years of organic evolution. In the beginning, there was just inorganic matter; somehow, and by way of processes of which we currently have no grasp, life, despite its enormous and daunting complexity at even the simplest level, arose from nonliving matter, and arose just by way of the regularities studied in physics and chemistry. Once life arose, random genetic mutation and natural selection, those great twin engines of evolution, swung into action. These genetic mutations are multiply random: they weren't intended by anyone, of course, but also were not directed by any sort of natural teleology and do not arise at the behest of the design plan of the organism. They are "not in a response to the needs of the organism" (Ernst Mayr); they just unaccountably appear. Occasionally, some of them yield an adaptive advantage; their possessors come to predominate in the population, and they are passed on to the next and subsequent generations. In this way, all the enormous variety of flora and fauna we behold came into being" (Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief OR Louis P. Pojman and Michael C. Rea, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, page 492). The probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable IS LOW, given naturalism and evolution. In symbols: P of R/N&E is low Cognitive faculties -- that part of us which produce belief Cognitive faculties are reliable IF they produce mostly true beliefs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce9I6BhXlrA: An interview with Patricia Churchland on youtube. (Doesn't have the quote that I mention in the video!!) Epiphenomenalism -- Belief is an 'epiphenomena' to behavior The Syntactic/semantic view -- belief is composed of two properties: 1) neuronal properities/events, and 2) the content of the belief (its veracity or falsity) On both these views, it would be ARBITRARY and inconsequential that a belief be true; thus we should conclude either that 'the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution is low or that it is inscrutable that our cognitive faculties are reliable given naturalism and evolution.' There's no reason to trust our cognitive faculties on these two views.

With the power of TemporalWarp 2(TM) technology, we can now transport people in discrete steps! See also epiphenomenalism. Director: Matthew Durrant Ass. Director: Lewis Dunham Matthew Roper: Himself

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 4. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0

John Searle is an American philosopher interested in philosophy of mind. Here are some key elements of Searle's position. * Rejects computational theory of mind with his Chinese Room argument. * Rejects Cartesian dualism. Probably rejects property dualism as well. * Study of consciousness using scientific method IS possible. This is very much against previously conceived notion that goes something like "consciousness is known subjectively only, thus scientific inquiry from third person perspective cannot explain consciousness." * Reduction of consciousness to neurobiological phenomena is not strictly possible since nuerobiological phenomena loses the qualitative feel of subjectivity. One must tackle this problem directly without eliminating consciousness. * Rejects epiphenomenalism, so he admits free will is real. I think he now takes somewhat agnostic position on this issue. This is part 7. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwOuE7IJoA Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctniu92XvzI Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFg4ikxHjY4 Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5U8HrlHb70 Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buvUPUwojiM Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOz5wCl8M Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MP-RegfGdA Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-UqjoJOK-0