Probing wikipedia I found some added light shed on the issue. Supposed scientific 'proof' that would seek to prove epiphenomenalist theory (within rationalist philosophies). I will re-post my brief explanation of epiphenomenal theory for those who weren't aware of the original post.
-
Info taken from wikipediaVoted for by TeChNoWC.
"A large body of neurophysiological data seems to support epiphenomenalism. Some of the oldest such data is the Bereitschaftspotential or "readiness potential" in which electrical activity related to voluntary actions can be recorded up to two seconds before the subject is aware of taking a decision to perform the action. More recently Benjamin Libet et al (1979) have shown that it can take 0.5 seconds before a stimulus becomes part of conscious experience even though subjects can respond to the stimulus in reaction time tests within 200 milliseconds. Recent research on the Event Related Potential also shows that conscious experience does not occur until the late phase of the potential (P3 or later) that occurs 300 milliseconds or more after the event. In Bregman's Auditory Continuity Illusion, where a pure tone is followed by broadband noise and the noise is followed by the same pure tone it seems as if the tone occurs throughout the period of noise. This also suggests a delay for processing data before conscious experience occurs. Norretranders has called the delay "The User Illusion" implying that we only have the illusion of conscious control, most actions being controlled automatically by non-conscious parts of the brain with the conscious mind relegated to the role of spectator."
Taken from en.wikipedia.org
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism
scroll down to 'arguments for'.
-
Brief ExplanationVoted for by TeChNoWC.
For those that cannot research epiphenomenalism on their own, it refers to a theory of mind and consciousness, that while mental states are caused by physical states, mental states do not have any causal influence on physical states. It is best described as a labeled 'ghost' (the conscious mind) living inside a machine (the body and its functions).
The ghost is so labeled due to the fact that a ghost refers to a spirit that no longer has any influence on the physical world around them (or very little, by common definition) but rather sticks around as a mere 'observer'. A machine however, does not have any conscious experience and is not self-aware. It merely follows complex, hardwired procedures.
So, this form of duality explores the concept that the conscious mind, or ghost, inhabits the machine, or body, without having any influence on the actions of the machine itself. It does not 'necessarily' express them as two seperate entities but rather the two parts of the one entity. While a person may think they have control over their actions, they really do not. The ghost simply serves as induced self-awareness due to the complexity of the machine (I don't know exactly how they explain this one; there are problems with the theory of duality) while the machine just performs the determined tasks. Thus, the ghost merely just experiences qualia and has no control over the body, although, it may think that it does.
This is not the best explanation that could be provided. Obviously, to gain a greater understanding one would be best to research the topic from a reliable source.
-
The Problem is the word ConsciousnessVoted for by ExpensiveThinker.
Think about what you mean about Consciousness-- everyone uses that term differently. You are talking about it like it is already a phenomenon which is the phenomenalogical thing you are trying to prove! What is "it" anyway?
My advice is that if you want to be a good researcher, don't look for things to support YOUR answer to a question, look for the answers and try to suppress your bias (everyone has a bias of course)
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Weydon
September 13, 2006
Edit | Reply
TeChNoWC
September 15, 2006
Edit | Reply
September 15, 2006
Edit | Reply
Wikipedia
Also taken from Wikepedia regarding Bereitschaftspotential Such experiments purport to measure the point in time when conscious experience occurs, which presumes that conscious experience has a measurable effect. Such a premise contradicts epiphenomenalism, which claims that conscious experience has no effects and therefore cannot be measured. Hence, so the argument goes, any experiment that detects whether or when conscious experience occurs argues strongly against, not for, epiphenomenalism.TeChNoWC
September 15, 2006
September 16, 2006
Edit | Reply
??????????????
Dosn't the fact that you are conscious of the theory of epiphenomenalism detract from the theory in and of itself. Further, how is the above argument not convincing. If there is a measurable effect produced by consciouness, how can it be that this theory holds up? I am interested in how you get around this. It seems to me that the very experiments that gave light to this theory also tend to disprove it. This electrical impulse so easily dismissed by you is produced by the consciousness. If it is not, then the theory is invalidated as far as this experiment goes. It it is then this theory is invalidated by the same experiment. ????????TeChNoWC
September 16, 2006
September 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
Consider yourself enlightened
My understanding is that there is a measurable electrical 'output' prior to the action not after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bereitschaftspotential#Outcomes "The young researchers stored the electroencephalogram and electromyogram of self-initiated movements (fast finger flexions) on tape and analyzed the cerebral potentials preceding movements time-reversed with the start of the movement as the trigger, literally turning the tape over for analysis since they had no reversal playback or programmable computer. A potential PRECEDING human voluntary movement was discovered and published in the same year (Kornhuber & Deecke 1964)." If prior to human action, there is a measurable effect in the electro activity of the brain, does this not indicate the consiousness is having an effect on the physical. If it is not the consciouness ( which I guess is possible though not likely) then what can it be??Dwn
September 17, 2006
Im not a nuerologist,
But it would seem to me that a signal of some sort, would be required to instigate movement,a command so to speak, whether generated by the conscious or non conscious part of the brain,So whether or not it was intialized by thought, there would still be the presence of electrical activity.September 17, 2006
Edit | Reply
DWN
Yes this is true but the whole theory of epi. hinges on the belief that your consciouness has no ability to act upon your body but rather is an effect of the physical form. The fact that there is eletrical activity prior to human activity suggests otherwise.TeChNoWC
September 18, 2006
Edit | Reply
Dwn
September 18, 2006
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free