Talk:Epiphenomenon

Doctor and client

Um, I don't think any doctor anywhere would ask a client "if he noticed any epiphenomena". I think the word epiphenomena should be used in the sentence parenthetically next to an equivalent expression in the vernacular. Unless I hear otherwise in a few days, I intend to edit that.

Also, the link is dead.

jtvisona 091304

Your few days have passed, so I'll just go ahead and edit (I think the example sentence can go altogether, though it did give me a good chuckle). The external link is just an possible instance of an epiphenomenon; it wouldn't be very appropriate even if it were live. Removed. JRM 15:22, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Note that I am not an expert in either medicine or philosophy, so if I'm talking completely out of my backside with the new edits, correct me with impunity. JRM 15:22, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Criticism

This view faces heavy criticism. One argument is that, if these epiphenomena exist, then how can they be known about? They have no effects at all, and the only way to know about something is through its effects. The response is that the epiphenomenon can be traced back to its cause, which then has a measurable and distinct effect. This response is similar to the criticism that the mental must have physical effects because it is pain which causes us to go "it hurts!" An epiphenomenalist argues that this is false. Brain processes cause both the pain and the action of us saying "It hurts!" The pain doesn't cause the action. Another objection is that, since early organisms don't have epiphenomena, they must have evolved. But how can that be, if they have no physical advantages? The answer is that epiphenomena are simply by-products, and simply evolved necessarily at the same time as more complex brain processes, which are advantageous.

This section is going to have to be pretty heavily cleaned up before it gets into the article. I'm no expert, but certain things here don't seem to make any sense. The "criticism" sounds like it's talking to itself. --Mr. Billion 16:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The exposition is basically correct. There are more details in Epiphenomenalism and the two first external links of that article. This is famously discussed also in Frank Jackson's essay "Epiphenomenal Qualia". Andres (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

---

It was probably first mentioned by T. H. Huxley in 1874.

What is meant here? Huxley doesn't use the word "epiphenomenalism" but suggests a version of epiphenomenalism. Definitely he wasn't the first to suggest any version of epiphenomenalism. Or is it meant he was the first to discuss epiphenomenalism as a philosophical position? This should be made clear. Andres (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious phenomenon

I noticed that certain critics of religion tend to regard it as a type of epiphenomenon of society that is a consequence of human alienation and oppression, such as in Marx's expression opium of the people. This could perhaps be included in the entry in one way of another, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Medicine

This paragraph makes no sense to me:

In medicine, an epiphenomenon is a secondary symptom seemingly unrelated to the original disease or disorder. For example, having an increased risk of breast cancer as a result of taking an antibiotic is an epiphenomenon. It is not the antibiotic that is causing the increased risk, but the increased inflammation associated with bacterial infection.

In this example, the secondary symptom (cancer) is directly related to the original disease (infection, inflammation). Thus the example contradicts the definition. Which is correct, the definition or the example? Roger (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FTL Quantum wave function collapse links here...

At Faster-than-light#Quantum_mechanics this statement, "Wavefunction collapse can be viewed as an epiphenomenon of quantum decoherence" links here. Perhaps this Epiphenomenon article could use a section addressing this topic. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Metaphysics section is impenetrable

I cannot make head nor tail of the metaphysics section. Could it be re-written in away that doesn't plunge immediately into the sort of notation that analytic philosophers are comfortable with, and that explains the context within which the concept of epiphenomena arose and that explains its significance? Also, maybe it could note who Lewis is. Thanks. dweinberger 15:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweinberger (talk • contribs)

Electrons

Electrons are an epiphenomena in modern physics, for instance the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physics was granted for “for experimental methods that generate attosecond pulses of light for the study of electron dynamics in matter" developed by A. L'Hullier and F. Krausz. The supporting quotation in this article cites Maxwell's Treatise as the source of field theory (pioneered by Faraday) which places the currents and fixed charges as epiphenomena. Rgdboer (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)