From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke Thu Dec 26 23:58:10 EST 1991
Article 2369 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Virtual Person? (was re: Searle and the Chinese Room)
Message-ID: <41047@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 91 04:45:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.41047
References: <1991Dec11.203452.9419@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec13.204324.27948@cs.yale.edu> <1991Dec15.023122.6582@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec16.181202.526@cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith..edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 17

Drew McDermott wrote (in article <1991Dec11.170157.27053@cs.yale.edu>):
  
	>The bottom line is that semantics is epiphenomenal, [...]

and again (in article <1991Dec16.181202.526@cs.yale.edu>):

	>Don't forget, I said semantics was epiphenomenal.

Daniel Dennett says (in "Conciousness Explained," p.405):

	"So if anyone claims to uphold a variety of epiphenomenalism,
	try to be polite, but ask:  What *are* you talking about?"

Dennett feels that the word "epiphenomenon" is used by different
writers with rather different meanings:  by philosophers to mean "has
no effect in the physical world whatsoever," and by psychologists to
mean "nonfunctional."


