 Epiphenomenalists can respond to James’s argument by offering support for the following two views. (I) There is a distinction between (a) neural events in sensory systems, which cause feelings, and (b) neural events in a reward system (where an event is a member of a reward system if and only if it contributes to continuance (or, discontinuance) or repetition (or avoidance) in similar circumstances, of any behavior that leads to that event). (II) What “pleasure” refers to in any possible world is the effect in consciousness of the events in (b) that contribute to continuance or repetition. Since both (a) events and (b) events have neural and, ultimately, behavioral effects, they can be selected for, and so can their combination. The alignment of feelings caused by useful stimuli and pleasure (and, by parallel reasoning, alignment of feelings caused by harmful stimuli and displeasure) would then follow from alignment of neural events of the kinds described in (a) and (b). This latter alignment is independently plausible. A reward system that can lead to quick decisions and a sensory system that provides discriminations for use in longer term planning would both confer advantages; and these systems would, in general, have to work together in a successful organism. (For fuller discussion of James’s argument see Robinson 2007, 2019; and for the structure of pleasure, see Robinson 2006b, 2019.)