Pretty much the same reason religion needs to be talked about. If no one had invented it wouldn’t be useful to dispute notions of god creating us for a divine purpose, but because many people think this indeed happened you have to talk about it. It’s especially important for reasonable discussions of AI.
Religion and epiphenomenalogy differ in three important ways:
Religion is widespread. Almost everyone knows what it is. Most people have at least some religious memes sticking in their heads. A significant fraction of people have dangerous religious memes in their heads so decreasing those qualifies as raising the sanity waterline. Epiphenomenalogy is essentially unknown outside academic philosophy, and now the lesswrong readership.
Religion has impact everywhere. People have died because of other people’s religious beliefs, and not just from violence. Belief in epiphenomenalogy has almost no impact on the lives of non-believers.
Religious thought patterns re-occur. Authority, green/blue, and “it is good to believe” show up over and over again. The sort of thoughts that lead to epiphenomenalogy are quite obscure.
The word “epiphenomenalogy” is rare. The actual theory seems like an academic remnant of the default belief that ‘You can’t just reduce everything to numbers, people are more than that.’
So your last point seems entirely wrong. Zombie World comes from the urge to justify religious dualism or say that it wasn’t all wrong (not in essence). And the fact that someone had to take it this far shows how untenable dualism seems in a practical sense, to educated people.
The most famous arguments for epiphenomenalism and zombies have nothing to do with religion. And we dont actually want to have reductive explanations of qualia, as you can tell from the fact that we can’t construct qualia - - we can’t write code that sees colours or tastes flavours. Construction is reduction in reverse.
Epiphenomenalogy is essentially unknown outside academic philosophy, and now the lesswrong readership.
I’d say it’s more widespread than that. Some strands of Buddhist thought, for instance, seem to strongly imply it even if they didn’t state it outright. And it feels like it’d be the most intuitive way of thinking about consciousness for many of the people who’d think about it at all, even if they weren’t familiar with academic philosophy. (I don’t think I got it from academic philosophy, though I can’t be sure of that.)
Pretty much the same reason religion needs to be talked about. If no one had invented it wouldn’t be useful to dispute notions of god creating us for a divine purpose, but because many people think this indeed happened you have to talk about it. It’s especially important for reasonable discussions of AI.
Religion and epiphenomenalogy differ in three important ways:
Religion is widespread. Almost everyone knows what it is. Most people have at least some religious memes sticking in their heads. A significant fraction of people have dangerous religious memes in their heads so decreasing those qualifies as raising the sanity waterline. Epiphenomenalogy is essentially unknown outside academic philosophy, and now the lesswrong readership.
Religion has impact everywhere. People have died because of other people’s religious beliefs, and not just from violence. Belief in epiphenomenalogy has almost no impact on the lives of non-believers.
Religious thought patterns re-occur. Authority, green/blue, and “it is good to believe” show up over and over again. The sort of thoughts that lead to epiphenomenalogy are quite obscure.
The word “epiphenomenalogy” is rare. The actual theory seems like an academic remnant of the default belief that ‘You can’t just reduce everything to numbers, people are more than that.’
So your last point seems entirely wrong. Zombie World comes from the urge to justify religious dualism or say that it wasn’t all wrong (not in essence). And the fact that someone had to take it this far shows how untenable dualism seems in a practical sense, to educated people.
The most famous arguments for epiphenomenalism and zombies have nothing to do with religion. And we dont actually want to have reductive explanations of qualia, as you can tell from the fact that we can’t construct qualia - - we can’t write code that sees colours or tastes flavours. Construction is reduction in reverse.
I’d say it’s more widespread than that. Some strands of Buddhist thought, for instance, seem to strongly imply it even if they didn’t state it outright. And it feels like it’d be the most intuitive way of thinking about consciousness for many of the people who’d think about it at all, even if they weren’t familiar with academic philosophy. (I don’t think I got it from academic philosophy, though I can’t be sure of that.)