Phenomenal judgment and mental causation

This paper defends and develops an argument against epiphenomenalism, broad ly construed. I argue first for a definition of epiphenomenalism which incl udes 'non-reductive' materialism as well as classical dualistic epiphenomen alism. I then present an argument that if epiphenomenalism were true it wou ld be impossible to know about or even refer to our conscious states - and therefore impossible even to formulate epiphenomenalism. David Chalmers has defended epiphenomenalism against such arguments, I consider this defence and attempt to show that it fails. I conclude that an adequate account of m ental causation requires us to abandon the principle of the causal closure of the physical, and attempt to rebut charges that it would be 'unscientifi c' to do so.