into the rain

^hahahahaha

yo fuck these hygiene threads.

lets just get straight down to it:

YOU WANK MORNING/NOON/NIGHT?

what is that?

how come on one pair of PS it says rue madame paris on the tag but another says jean droit edroit?

is this a gender distinction?

hip-hop seems to be the only genre in mainstream music that keeps doubting its own existence

AM I DEAD??!

remember when some dude made a hip-hop song about how hip-hop is dead? and then another dude made a song about the song that said hip-hop was dead? and then another made a song about the song that was about the song that hip-hop was dead?

BOOM

the demo was alright but i cannot fuck with KZ3 and its "weight." feels so heavy in movement. maybe im just so used to CoD style twitch shooters (which actually goes back to my Counter-Strike days).

really nice looking game though.

^you're the BOSS.

i used to shower both in the morning and at night; but then my skin got dry as fuck. so i just shower at night.

usually shower daily during the summer, but in the colder months i shower once every two days (mainly because of hair).

this is such a random thread by the way.

is there some optimal time to hit up shake shack? every time i try to go there is a ridiculously long line.

oh wow i didnt even notice the thread title change. props to whoever did it.

would it be immoral to approch undergrad chicks, if you have teached some of their classes? Some of those chicks are definitly curious, one even made an effort to stay after class to compliment my shoes. hah.

dont do it man. you dont want that kind of shit following you around your career in academia.

size up or down from NC for PS? will + rep

can i just say i love half-asian women. seriously i love them more than CWG, KAG, SWAG, etc. i am going to find me one and wife it.

shit, i could really use the joint!

but to the issue at hand: i will admit that argument from intuition is generally a poor one; but that is also the case for arguments made from a lack of evidence. just because we have no proofs about X cannot be the basis for the legitimacy of any argument Y.

now, as ive mentioned before, analytic philosophy of mind is neither my area of expertise nor competence; so i apologize ahead for any errors and/or assumptions made on my part - please feel free to correct me where needed.

from my understanding, the central argument of epiphenomenalism is that all mental events are merely byproducts of physical events, rendering everything into a material process. to me, it seems much like what william james wrote about emotions. we dont sweat or tremble because we feel fear; rather, we have the mental event of fear because of those antecedent physical events (sweating, trembling, heart beating faster, etc, caused by some external physical stimulus, e.g., seeing a stranger in the dark with a knife).

but consider this (and for this i will assume you are not some jesus-freak, christian fundamentalist): the human species originally began as a very simple, purely physical entity, behaving much in the fashion of an ant or a zombie, as it were.

but even though such a materially operating being may be our ancestor, it is clear to us that we now have something we call a "mind" with its distinctive set of mental properties such as emotions, ideas, volitions, etc. then the question we have to ask is this: why the difference? how is it that we have developed into a being with a mind from a species that originally did not have a mind, if the mind has no effective role in making any causal difference as the epiphenomenalist says?

our current species, i.e., one that has a mind, survived and developed over time in a Darwinian fashion precisely because of the fact that having a mind made a significant causal difference than those of our ancestry who were purely physical operated entities.

but even without relying on an argument from evolution, epiphenomenalism can be further problematized by considering aesthetics: if epiphenomenalism is true, then EVERY SINGLE TIME we watch a particular film, listen to a musical piece, observe any form of plastic art, we would have the exact same mental event, i.e., the same reaction. do you think this is really plausible? i can think of countless instances in which my reaction to a particular film differed by the particular mood (mental state) i was in. at times i was angry, but at another time i was sad, each event having a different bodily reaction (heart pacing faster in the former, getting teary-eyed in the latter). in other words, all our aesthetic experiences are done with the viewer engaging with the work of art with a particular set of mental states. put simply, mental events are a causal factor in any aesthetic experience.

the absurdity of epiphenomenalism is that it is completely one-sided, in my opinion. and its systematic rigidity and one-sidedness cant possibly take into account how people can have different reactions at different times to the same exact physical event.

maybe i dont know what the fuck im talking about, and this is certainly possible as my knowledge in philosophy of mind is severely lacking; but i hope ive made some convincing objections.

Dum looks like Malcolm X, just from the eyes and the glasses.

my scholarship in the analytic philosophy of mind is more than lacking, but epiphenomenalism just sounds wrong on an intuitive level. that physical events do not have any antecedent mental events is really a crazy position to hold. i mean, think about it: to make the claim that a person's physical behaviors and actions are completely unaffected by whatever mental state (e.g., depression, joy, anxiety, etc.) he is in is fucking crazy.

but you should know that the epiphenomenalist view (and the problem of mind-body interaction in general) is only relevant for the few that still endorse substance dualism a la descartes. there is only a handful of contemporary philosophers of mind, to my knowledge, who ascribe to that view. most of the work is done by those who endorse property dualism.

woah bump for any philosophers up in sufu

another 2 hours of Matt Damon running from a menacing bureaucratic agency!!!

thanks for the heads up.

i hope it's not some 25+ dollar burger like minetta!

but still, i will eventually get around to trying the burger at minetta