Perhaps the most embarrassing part about all of this—and there is much embarrassing in silly insults aimed at one’s opposition being thrown around at a blog named “Overcoming Bias”—is that epiphenomenalists know the arguments, know quite well the apparent absurdity of the position, and have responses, and none of these seem to show up in all this discussion. For example, here. Alas, rather what we have here seems to be a gleeful variant of Ludditism: “Look at those fancy philosophers with their logic and their rationality and their big words! What a bunch of assholes!” Presuming one’s opposition is stupid does not strike me as a reliable or respectable means of converging on the truth.
One gets the feeling that Overcoming Bias is to bias as O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone is to spin.
Seeing something substantial addressed, as opposed to a secondhand reading, would be useful in that it would 1. move the discussion forward, and 2. show some evidence that the poster has actually taken the time to read the opposition and consider its best arguments.
I’ve read those arguments you link and they always seem to boil down to thin self referential definitions and using synonyms as if they’re explanations.
“For example, my concept of phenomenal ‘redness’ is grounded in the phenomenal quality of redness that I experience”
you might as well say that my concept of wibble is grounded in the wib quality of ble that I experience. it shares the same level of insigtfulness.
Qualia are kind of supposed to be indefineable. OTOH, if someone claims not to know what one is, you could jab them with a needle or something.