In effect your neuron is firing and the action that results is drinking, the epi part is where you consciously decide to drink, but this happens because the neuron fired.

Neuron fires, and two things happen as a result, I drink and I decide consciously to drink.

Where this gets really problematic though, is when you start talking about higher level functioning. Say I tell you that your father just died.

Neurons are firing, and you have a physical reaction, crying for instance, and also then a conscious reaction. But the conscious reaction is ridiculously complex. Think of how much CPU power is used to create virtual worlds in video games. Then imagine how an even more complex virtual world generator could have evolved in human beings…. simply as a side effect with no causal nature… and therefore no benefit to the organism.

The processing overhead is huge for the brain creating all you see, hear, taste… consciously, but epiphenom reduces consciousness is just noise. Unless consciousness has some function… some effect… it makes no sense for the body to keep it. Its way too much work and it would likely go the way of our appendix.

You don’t need a computer gui, just the 1s and 0s…. and an algorithm. Unless the gui has a use.

That’s just one objection to epiphenom, by the way, there are others. Truth is, we just don’t know what consciousness is…. yet.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. – Sun Tzu

Take a drink:

If you have ever tried to back up a philosophical/religious argument with a reference to sci-fi
Two, if you referenced Star Trek
Three, if it was the Matrix
Four, if it was Babylon 5
Plus one, one if you actually quoted a fictional character.

If you think believers who take (___________) literally are stupid, and believers who don’t take it literally are hypocrites, but still want to claim you value rational discourse over ad hominem.

If you claim not to have faith in science, but still strongly believe science will eventually fix/cure (_________).

If you think subscribing to moral relativism demands that one approve of (insert really bad thing here).

If you love Dawkins, but haven’t actually read any of his books.
Plus one for Hitchens, and another for Harris.

If you have ever referenced Leviticus in an argument.
Two if you can quote the passage.
Plus one if you have actually read any other part of the bible.
Plus two if you can quote a sexy part.
Plus three if you can reference the Qu’ran in Arabic

If you insist that its reasonable to require that the laws of our universe must apply to the alleged being who created same.

If you believe that epiphenomenalism isn’t a problematic form of dualism.

If you think being empirical means using science, and everything else is just philosophy.
Two more if think string theory is cool.
Plus one, if you can defend many worlds.
Plus one, if wikipedia is your source.
Plus two, if you can do the math that proves it.

If you think the only way to atheism is through an understanding of science.
Plus one if you think all scientists who aren’t atheists are blind, brainwashed or drunk.

If you didn’t know that IQ was designed to measure mental retardation, not how much better you are than others.

If you think philosophers are really fearful that the sun will not come up tomorrow.
Two, if you think Descartes was a solipsist.
Plus one, if you have read Atlas Shrugged.
Plus one, if you finished it.
Plus four, if you think its the best book ever written.

If you have ever kidnapped a cracker.
Plus one if you got death threats.
Plus two if you gave a lecture about it.
Plus five, if you were paid for that lecture.

If you take your atheism very very seriously

Feel free to add your own….

Well, glad we could have an intelligent, adult conversation about it.