I think part of the problem is that your premise 3 is question-begging: it assumes away epiphenomenalism on the spot.
Chalmers’ argument also negates the possibility of epiphenomenalism. If consciousness is produced by physical events but does not affect them, how does the physical entity of Chalmers gain knowledge about consciousness?
This is just the Liar’s Paradox tarted up with philosophical terms.
Chalmers’ argument also negates the possibility of epiphenomenalism. If consciousness is produced by physical events but does not affect them, how does the physical entity of Chalmers gain knowledge about consciousness?
This is just the Liar’s Paradox tarted up with philosophical terms.