That's an example of emergentism.
There might be a few simple rules that govern each individual's reaction to the feedback, then taken together it looks as if the ants intelligently coordinated their actions ... flocks of birds are another example, an early computer program called "boids" used three rules to replicate flocking behavior. (of course there probably is intelligence going on in both ants and birds - but the point is a good simulation can be made by a few simple rules ... cf. two dudes moving a couch)
Epiphenomenalism is a phenomena that runs parallel to a primary one ... epiphenomenal theories of mind say that physiological processes underlie both the behavior of the organism and the phenomenal feel of being that organism but that the phenomenal feel, the what it is like to be that organism doesn't feed back into the system - it's merely an effect of physical processes.
The way I presented it here on the thread was as a counterargument to non-reductive physicalist accounts of mind. See Jaegwon Kim's argument for the assumptions/premises ... causal closure and causal exclusion both of which Kim felt were reasonably acceptable to physicalists.
I think the thing
@ufology didn't understand about causal exclusion (and may have since cleared up - I'm not caught up on the thread yet) is it doesn't mean one cause per effect, it means once you have sufficient cause (in total) then additional cause is a case of over-determination ... so a physicalist says all the causes are physical, one of the
effects is the mental, the phenomenal feel ... what it is like ... etc but the mental is not itself a cause because we can explain all the behaviors with physical effects.
An example of over-determination on these terms would be if someone put the 8 ball in the cornet pocket and said "did you see that? how the ball curved over like that into the pocket? I used my mind to move it in that direction" - you would say no, the sum of the forces imparted by the cue put the ball in the pocket, in exactly the same way the epiphenomenalist would say it's not your
experience of willing your hand to move, that was all physical processes - neuronal, chemical, muscular, etc etc -
@ufology's example of not being consciously aware until after a decision is made comes into play in such an argument.
Another way that I understand the hard problem ... and I think this is Nagel's point in WILTBAB ... if I provide a recipe for the universe - all of the objective, physical information needed to create a world and run it through a computer fabricator - a computerized reality generator, then presumably there will be consciousness but the "what it is like to be" is not included in that recipe, isn't contained in the objective description ... that was Nagel's modest critique of physicalism which at the time claimed to completely describe the universe - he said no, because you leave out "what it is like".
Chalmers took it from there and labelled it the "hard problem" and love it or hate it - the rest is history.