26 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13 '17 at 12:40 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
Mar 26 '12 at 23:11 history reopened Joseph Weissman
Sep 24 '11 at 14:47 history closed Joseph Weissman not constructive
Aug 13 '11 at 1:24 comment added davidlowryduda This seems peculiar to me too. I am familiar with Stanford's definision: "Epiphenomenalism is the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events." I suspect the reason there is no such definition for physical objects is that cause and effect themselves are difficult to distinguish, Newton's 3rd being what it is.
Aug 10 '11 at 2:11 history reopened smartcaveman
Joseph Weissman
Aug 9 '11 at 11:20 history closed Joseph Weissman not constructive
Aug 6 '11 at 2:02 answer Alpha timeline score: 1
Aug 6 '11 at 0:00 answer Matt Munson timeline score: -1
Aug 5 '11 at 14:20 answer Speldosa timeline score: 0
Aug 5 '11 at 13:26 comment added Speldosa @Joseph Weissman I'm not redefining the term in question. I'm adjusting it to fit to another domain than it was created for. If you can find any definition of an epiphenomenal process between two physical objects, please, be my guest and present it. I bet that you won't find it anywhere (hence, the need for creating one). My question concerns if somebody could give me (or refute the possible existence of) an analogous example to confirmed epiphenomenalism (as it's understood in philosophy of mind) within any domain at all.
Aug 5 '11 at 12:44 comment added Joseph Weissman Why are you redefining the term in question? (Keep in mind questions and answers involving your own personal definitions of words are not really constructive here.) Please cite a neutral source for definitions of nontrivial or controversial terms if possible. I see your link to Wikipedia; why don't you reproduce a definition from one of the primary sources there?
Aug 4 '11 at 17:24 answer Matt Munson timeline score: 1
Aug 4 '11 at 13:13 answer Tom Boardman timeline score: 1
Aug 3 '11 at 17:17 answer stoicfury timeline score: 1
Aug 3 '11 at 15:05 history edited Speldosa CC BY-SA 3.0
added 64 characters in body
Aug 3 '11 at 8:11 history tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/98667188549984256
Aug 3 '11 at 2:04 answer stoicfury timeline score: 0
Aug 2 '11 at 23:52 comment added Speldosa I added the new definition to the main text.
Aug 2 '11 at 23:52 history edited Speldosa CC BY-SA 3.0
added 399 characters in body
Aug 2 '11 at 23:42 comment added Speldosa Ok, let us try out this new definition and see if it can steer away from the past-future-example: "Epiphenomenalism is when the state and/or postion of an object a, at any point in time at or after time t (at which b gets affected by a), is different from the state and/or position it would have if b wasn't affected by a's action".
Aug 2 '11 at 23:08 comment added Speldosa Oh, I see. Yes, that would qualify. Now, I just have to think about what consequences that has for my question :) Give me some time to think.
Aug 2 '11 at 22:45 comment added Tom Boardman Apologies, was wondering if, by the definition you were using, the future is an epiphenomenon of the past.
Aug 2 '11 at 22:43 history edited Speldosa CC BY-SA 3.0
added 529 characters in body; edited title
Aug 2 '11 at 22:17 comment added Speldosa Sorry, could you expand your comment? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.
Aug 2 '11 at 21:34 comment added Tom Boardman Past and future?
Aug 2 '11 at 19:26 history asked Speldosa CC BY-SA 3.0