A criticism of epiphenomenalism is that to assert it is to simultaneously claim that one's assertion was done unconsciously, which conflicts with the concept of assertion.
Is there an account of non-volitional communication? — frank
Maybe speech acts come in different varieties. Some necessarily volitional and some not. — frank
What do you understand the terms "non-volitional" and "communication" to mean? — tim wood
I take "answer" as broadly defined, meaning no test can be devised that can determine any reaction by you or from you that could establish whether you "received" the communication. Above you define "communication" in terms of my expectations; not, imo a tenable definition. (Alternatively, your definition is of my expectation of communication, that if I did receive a reply - i.e., you did reply - would just be communication.)In this scenario, your question about what I understand can be directed toward me, but the conscious part of me can't answer the question. — frank
I believe volition is a requirement of communication. I wondered what the opposing view might be. — frank
I believe volition is a requirement of communication. I wondered what the opposing view might be. Perhaps there is no opposing view. — frank
I agree. I also agree that there are types of communication that do not require volition. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.