If submerging oneself in a bathtub full of something isn’t a sign of overindulgence, decadence and poor bathtub maintenance know-how, I don’t know what is. This one features the customary “make a face befitting the tragedy you are depicting” pose, dedicated to the photographer who refused to shoot me until it was stricken.

Wallowing in my own crapulence, trying to look my usual self but actually freezing my lower half under freezing bulbs and getting penetrated by icy winds everywhere else:

Finally, my whining about the cold and uncomfortable nature of my position has earned me the chance to take some precious nitrous while I’m stuck in the tub, in the name of “anesthetizing” myself from the cold.

I still have these bulbs, for I have been too lazy to recycle them and optimistic about coming up with another idea for a shoot. Ideally, the bathtub would be one of those “white on gold feet” numbers and it wouldn’t be winter nor my overweight former self that would be captured…

Do you have any other ideas for what could be made from so many identical little cylinders or small boxes? Please come up with something better than me just cleaning them up and giving the metal a new home.

“I was licking jelly off my boyfriend’s penis, then all of a sudden I started thinking, “oh, my God, I’m turning into my mother…”
“I’ve got a baby niece and I can make her laugh so easy. You know what babies love? Ethnic jokes.”
“I guarantee, if you take a shower with your boyfriend, by the time you step out, your breasts will be sparkling clean.” – 3 jokes by Sarah Silverman

“Thank you all very much for not filming this on your cell phone. That has become the new scourge of stand-up = people sitting there thinking, “Well, I want to enjoy this…But now is not good for me. Later would be better. Later and smaller would be better for my schedule.” – John Oliver

“You all know Unlce Sam? He’s that goat-faced dude who dresses up like Apollo Creed. And he’s always pointing at you – he wants you…Is that really the imagery we should be listening to? An uncle who looks like he’s about to touch you? A touch uncle? Uncle Sam wants you…to keep a secret…” – Glenn Wool
“How do insurance companies know what is and isn’t an act of God? Do they have a hotline to God? Do they call him up?
God: Hello, God speaking, what do you want?
Gervais: Um, that volcanic ash cloud – was that you?
God: Yep. Yes that was an act of me alright.
Gervais: So we shouldn’t pay out?
God: No, don’t f*king pay them a penny, son.
Gervais: Brilliant. While I’ve got you here, did you make a tree fall on Steve Baxter’s car?
God: There’s a lot of Steve Baxters…
Gervais: Steve Baxter, 2 acacia Rd, Houndslow. It happened at 2.15pm on the 3rd of June this year.
God: 2.15? Third of June? No, that wasn’t me. I was in Africa that day giving AIDS to babies.” – Ricky Gervais

“I was in a band which we called The Prevention, because we hoped people would say we were better than The Cure. “- Alan Sharp

“Why do people feel safe under blankets? It’s not like a murderer will come come in thinking “I’M GOING TO KILL…Ah darn, he’s under a blanket!” – Tweet by Peter Griffin

The new blog will feature easier navigating methods, a system of internal links between similar articles that has the advantage of actual functionality as well as a categorising system which is highly superior to the oafish attempt I made to categorize my blogs as they were being created. No un ategorised material running hageldy-pageldy on your page, categorical overlapping only when posts fall into two distinct categories and not because the categories themselves are undifferentiated and similar – there are even sub-menus, instead of “sub-menu”.

To all my readers, past and present, I just wanted to say that I’m really looking forward to…

simply steer my body so I can avoid bumping into shit while I walk.

A taste of things to come…my first photoshopped creation! Clicking it links to the new site.

Comment & add links to any favourites of yours.

What is dualism in the philosophy of mind? What forms does dualism take? Two of the most significant problems with dualism are (i) the problem of brain functioning and (ii) the problem of causal efficacy. Explain what these problems are. Can any form of dualism overcome these problems?   

The enigma of existence and mankind’s place in the world has raised a number of  interesting and highly mysterious questions concerning the nature of the human  mind. Since the time of ancient Greece, one of the principle problems for  philosophers has been trying to reconcile the ambiguous nature of the human  mind  with the physical world[1]. While a variety of different theories exist, the  most prevalent one throughout civilisation has probably been dualism, which was  first formally postulated by Rene Descartes in the 17^th century, although it no  doubt  existed subconsciously for many generations before that. This essay  attempts to take a critical look at dualism and then enumerate some of the  arguments for and against it. It will, finally, through a process of research-based  extrapolation, suggest that a firm rejection of dualism is the only viable option to  ensure the further development of the philosophy of mind.

What is dualism:

Before we look at the different strands of dualist theory, it is useful to begin with a generalised dualist model. The word ‘dual’ is fairly explicit; essentially the dualist philosopher believes that there are two kinds of properties in the world; physical and non-physical.  The physical world is everything that we can see, touch and hear, or as Descartes, a pioneering substance dualist put it, anything that is extended in space, with length, breadth or height as an indicating factor.[2] Conversely, the non-physical is a ‘second and radically different kind of substance’[3] that has no spatial extension or position. It is this, according to the dualists that makes up the mind and provides us, as human beings, with the ability to reason, calculate and be emotional or introspective. It is important to note at this point the spiritual factor of dualism, as it will come up later in the discussion as an important point of contention.

With this definition in mind, we can briefly look at the various strands of dualism. They have been broken into two broad categories: substance dualism and property dualism. Descartes was a proponent of Cartesian dualism, and as he saw it, the mind is not your material body but instead a non-spatial substance all of its own, devoted purely to thinking.[4] The crux here is that this mind is distinct from the body, and the two separate entities are in constant causal interaction with each other in order to make your body ‘behave in purposeful ways.’[5] Descartes termed the mechanism of this causal interaction ‘animal spirits,’ which he defined as a very ‘subtle’ material substance. [6] The other form of substance dualism is one that philosopher Paul Churchland describes as popular dualism. This theory holds that the mind is like a ‘ghost in a machine,’ operating in or very near to the body, generally with a strong interaction with the brain. [7]

The other main variant of dualism is known as property dualism. It essentially holds that there is no substance beyond the human brain, but that the brain has special emergent properties that are both non-physical and irreducible.[8] These properties can be thoughts, or emotions, or desires, or feelings of pain, and they cannot be explained in terms of the physical sciences. One strand, called epiphenomenalism, goes so far to suggest that these emergent properties are merely by-products of preconceived actions of our brains. In effect, they are ‘impotent’[9] recordings of the actions of our brain rather than the stimulus for actions. According to this view, freewill is essentially negated. Another position holds that these emergent properties are actually in constant interaction and have causal effects on one another. This position is called interactionist property dualism. [10]

The dualist dilemma- brain functioning and causal efficacy

However, these dualist positions suffer from the same problems; they either negate the link between the brain and the mind, or fail to explain how the mind (which they hold to be made of a non-physical substance) has any impact on the brain and the body.

As demonstrated by Churchland, substance dualism can be easily defeated by the problem of brain functioning. To paraphrase his argument, if the mind really is distinct from the brain, then it follows that impairments to the brain from outside influences like alcohol, drugs, senility, or damage should have no effect on the mind. However, it is a truism to say that this is not the case.[11] Alcohol severely impairs judgment and rational thought, while a knock to the head can destroy the power of the mind instantly. The property dualist can to a certain extent counter this argument by claiming that as the ‘emergent properties’ are inextricably linked to the brain, they will inevitably be impaired by brain damage.[12] However, without stipulating how this damage occurs or how these apparently irreducible properties can be damaged, they are still not satisfactorily defending the theory.

The experiments of the 70’s and 80’s, concerning the cleaving of the corpus callosum, went a long way in disrupting the dualist argument and reaffirming materialism. Essentially, the procedure was designed to reduce the severity of epileptic seizures from particularly affected sufferers, and involved separating the brains two hemispheres at their communication point, in effect preventing communication between the two. Principally of interest here, were the experiments done on patients who had received the operation.[13] These displayed a tendency for the different hemispheres to have difficulty forming unified actions and recollections for the single mind, and displayed very powerfully the relationship between the mind and the state of the brain.[14] The conclusion that can logically be drawn here is that the mind is a product of the structure of   the   brain.

The linking factor here is the problem of causal efficacy, or in other words, the way in which the dualist claims the physical body and the non-physical mind interact. How indeed does a non-physical substance affect the workings of the brain? If it indeed has no spatial extension or position, how does it transcend the physical world to cause actions, and conversely, how does it receive stimuli (such as pain, for example) that would by most accounts seem purely physical?[15] If the dualist wishes to infuse his argument with credibility, he must answer this question adequately. Unfortunately for the dualist, at this point in time, his answer is purely speculative. Descartes depended upon ‘animal spirits’ to explain causal efficacy, but surely this is as unsupported and imaginative as any other dualist claim.[16] Other theories have also been postulated, but all rely on the initial premise of the non-physical mind and consequently they also fall short of being credible or scientifically acceptable. Whereas the materialist can speak with passion about the complex workings of neurones and cells and electricity working between the spinal cord and the brain, the dualist has no established basis for his explanations of causal efficacy, and instead has to exercise a deifying belief in a purely speculative non-physical substance.[17]

The Dead-ends of Dualism

It is with this last point that we enter the crux of this debate; namely dualism’s open relation to the concept of ‘faith’ and religion. The reason that the progress of the philosophy of mind has been so inextricably bogged down for hundreds of years is that the stakes are simply too high. The classical dualist (and forgive the generalisation) is not arguing for the sake of intellectual stimulation; he is arguing to preserve the very foundation of his lifestyle; he is arguing to uphold one of the key aspects of his religion and thus arguing to preserve the status quo. If he is defeated by the arguments of the materialist, he must sacrifice an aspect of his religion and most probably far more as well. For the implications of dualism go far beyond the petty confines of the nature of human intelligence. Rather, they touch upon the fundamental issues of religion, such as the ‘soul’ and life after death. The tragedy for dualists is: how can there be life after death if the mind has no ethereal non-physical qualities?[18]

It is this, in this writer’s opinion, which is the reason for the stagnation of philosophy of mind. Right now, materialism faces the same opposition as evolution. Both are far more potent as theories in terms of scientific support and logical coherency than their religiously based alternatives, and yet both face savage opposition from people who are arguing for more than just philosophical progress. The materialist is charged with an impossible duty, and unfortunately, no amount of scientific evidence or logical arguing, such as the Ockham’s Razor hypothesis of rational methodology[19], will solidly end the debate, because dualism’s main premise is our inability to prove it. Thus, dualism is a dead-end, or as philosopher Daniel Dennett put it: “accepting dualism is giving up.”[20]

Dualism’s Defence

With all these criticisms in mind, one must wonder why anyone would feel compelled to believe in dualism, let alone the majority of the human race. The dualist appeal lies in its universality.[21] Apart from the obvious religious connection, its arguments touch upon the fundamental mysteries of human life, such as the power of human introspection and the irreducibility of thoughts and emotions.

The argument for introspection is an interesting and undeniably compelling one. Essentially, our mind is so unbelievably complex and layered that it feels genuinely impossible to factor it all down to biology and structure. When we look in on ourselves, we do not see neurones or frontal lobes or surging electricity; instead we feel thoughts and desires, impulses and emotions.[22] In short, the consequences of introspection seem completely alien to the field of science and biology. Camus eloquently phrases the dilemma of mans alienation from science and logic in his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus,’

That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that determine everything are enough to make a decent man laugh. They have nothing to do with the mind.  They negate its profound truth…[23]

Camus expresses here the doubts and anxieties of Everyman.[24] To us, a mere scientific explanation seems flimsy compared to the power of introspection. But as Churchland argues, the serious use of this argument for the sake of dualism is ‘deeply suspect.’[25] If our abilities are constant, then introspection should have the same fallibility (if not far more) as vision, hearing or touch. The assumption that we have the ability to analyse our own minds is unsound scientifically because there can be no qualitative verification or consistency.[26]

Irreducibility is essentially a collection of arguments similar to the arguments from introspection, basically appealing to human beings to assess their own feelings and thoughts as being irreducible. Descartes was one of the first to suggest this argument. He believed that the human ability to reason, particularly in the field of mathematics, could not be reduced to the physical nature of our biology, and thus must have a special non-physical quality.[27] In this day and age however, this argument becomes deeply problematic due to the advent of the calculator and the computer, machines that are far more capable of mathematical skills like addition, subtraction or calculus than the average human mind.[28] Others have cited emotions as an irreducible property that confirms dualism, and certainly to anyone who has ever been in love or mourned the passing of a family member, this argument seems convincing. However, yet again science has developed significantly to discover the inexplicable relationship between emotions and chemicals in the brain.[29] The materialist has no choice but to mercilessly state that we can trace our complex faculties to biological roots each and every time.

Conclusion: Where do we go from here?

Until they can provide physical evidence of the non-physical (which seems highly unlikely, and furthermore, obscenely paradoxical), the duellist’s argument must be rejected. Philosophy of mind depends upon logical arguing, scientific support and furthermore, upon the potential for development. Dualism offers none of these. Philosophy of mind should now be devoted to the physical properties of the brain and how its structure provides us with such a rich and introspectively-troubled existence.

References:

Camus, Albert The Myth of Sisyphus, (Penguin: France, 1942)

Churchland, Paul, Matter and Consciousness, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988),

Dennett, Daniel Explaining Consciousness entry in Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little, Brown, 1991,

Devlin, Keith Goodbye, Descartes: The end of logic and the search for a new cosmology of the mind, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Canada, 1997)

Gallois, Andre The world without, the mind within: An essay on first-person authority , (Cambridge University Press: Great Britain, 1996

Glover, Jonathan I: The Philosophy and Psychology of Personal Identity (London: Penguin, 1988)

Putnam, Hilary Representation and Reality (Bradford, MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988)

 Change your perspective, change your priorities. If you’re unhappy, don’t whine about it and cover up the tears with drugs. Don’t escape it, actively work to change your reality so that it is no longer something that needs escaping. Drugs have their use, but they should always be the icing on the cake; never the cake itself. Happiness cannot be found in a gram of meth, a nos machine or a syringe. Happiness has to come from within, from a place so independent of the details of your life that nothing can shake it.

Treat life like a trip – don’t allow yourself to have a bad one.

This is kind of what it’s like.

I can’t make my own decisions anymore, you do it. It’s a 1-question survey by the way. CLICK ME

For the chance to choose from colours and obscure options like the below.

Atheism is still a theism: a leap of faith is still necessary to proclaim “i believe god DOES NOT exist” . Agnostics make the similar, yet distinct claim: “I DO NOT believe that god exists”(subject to change upon arrival of convincing evidence).

Formerly an agnostic myself, I explain its superiority over atheism thus: if, against all odds, Jesus rocked up and performed some ultra-mega-huge miracles all over an atheists house, they would be forced to close their eyes, block their ears, cork their bung holes and yell “lalala this isn’t happening” to drown out the conflicting evidence. An agnostic would be able to simply go, “Boy, I would’ve never have picked that one as the true one! Glad I waited before whoring my soul out to just any deity, Jesus, you’re the prophet for me!” and become a christian right then and there. Obviously, the rational choice is to suspend judgement – you would not want Jesus performing cool shit around you and your Atheism preventing you from seeing and enjoying it. Atheism connotes a degree of loyalty to the belief of the abcense of a god – faced with a jesus comeback, a true atheist will tend to question the evidence rather than his belief. He is likely to call Jesus an impostor and try to explain away this “impostor’s” miraculous feats and triumphs over the laws of space and time – anything to uphold his belief in an absence of God. An agnostic has no such irrational connexion with his status and would gladly trade it for another, were another to make more sense.

The problems with atheism are obvious, but what about agnosticism – is it really plausible to spend one’s whole life sitting on the ontological fence, and if you’ve been there for a while, is not your metaphorical arse as sore as mine? Fortunately there is a third option – a new, quaint and modest yet quirky religion – for those of us who want a little more oomph with our spirituality than the unyielding response Agnosticism generates: “There is Insufficient evidence, abstain from choice of god”.

For now, my brethren, let us keep it short and simple. Aiseism is the only religion whose self-professed god is as ridiculous as the notion of a God itself is. Exhibit A:

Fact: every major religion worships entities, which have either passed their used-by date or have never officially been born. Fact: I am the only deity in existence that can boast physical existence, currently alive status as well as many other things, due to my bitching boasting powers.

 Aiseism doesn’t require a belief in anything non-physical; you don’t need to schedule specific gatherings at any church-like locations for singing my praises and synchronized clapping – you’ll have more rights as a underling within my organization than you would following any other deity. I don’t dictate where, when, what or how you sing, I simply encourage everyone to let their spontaneity thrive and break out into song whenever it tickles their fancy. The gesture itself will be considered as an act of worship so the song need not be particularly pious or devout itself.

There is no ancient book, parts of which are to be followed with great zeal, whilst other portions are unspoken of an ignored; thine own beliefs will have no impact on what parts of a holy book are suddenly more relevant, for there shall be no BUY BULL equivalent. All you’ll need to be a successful and happy Aiseist is to practice prayer – not to communicate with me, yay, for I have mobile phone technology – but as a means of reaching your own sub-conscious – to meditate, rather. “Sir Buck Onshious” will be the supposed recipient of your prayers, as personification aids closeness and such a name would no doubt result in some confusion-generated publicity.

You will also need to posses basic logic skills to equip you to dismantle and neutralize the faith of the life-wasting, deluded religious fanatics who have yet to reach senility. On a daily basis, an Aiseist is committed to forging a strong connexion between one’s conscious and one’s mighty subconscious. Beyond this humble task, the Aiseist adheres to the following simple yet succinct doctrine: “Never follow anything blindly, and trip those who are doing so on your stroll through life.”

Thank you for your time,

Aisia Spiffington

This is a photographic guide to taking nitrous. For a detailed look on what to do click here – and no, you can’t just look at the photos and wing it; there are diagrams and to be safe you have to READ THIS (same link as above; just repeating to get my point across.

If you’ve read the more detailed page, this is what your nos taking will look like from the outside:

1) Prepare thy stash – preferably in a manner where you can see it and it takes up as much of your field of view as possible. You want to feel bountiful when you start, and be prepared for the inevitable end.

2) Whip out your machine; preferably, it is your own and there is no sharing, plus you have gotten to know it and hallucinated some critters inside it, if you’re lucky. Below: the elusive Knight Ross Oxide and the illustrious Sir Nossalot have developed relationships with their respective machines because they are professionals and spend much time machine in hand. Also, they are weirdos.

3) Turn off the lights, turn on any UV lights/light toys, ensure everything you could need is within your grabitational field, pre-roll cigarettes and other smoke-ables; wear something cooky on your shoes because your feet may enter in as characters. If inside, turn 0n fans and open windows for ventilation. You can even add a free strobe light effect to your trip by blinking continuously. Acknowledge your fellow travellers with a cheers-like “clink”-ing of your machines. Warn any newbies in your environment that you’re going away for a while and are not to be disturbed. For best results, get an mp3 player, put something like infected mushroom or something that has strong pleasant associations for you on it, get a splitter and connect two sets of headphones to the one music device. This way, you’re in sync with your partner in crime.

4) Prepare your “nos theatre” – your field of view will be the backdrop of all of your trips – insert something interesting/confusing for extra fun. You can improve your field of view with bracelets/glow sticks/arm warmers and other hand/arm accessories. Gloves make it harder to load, however. Below – a simple example of a theatre – a human, some nature, the sunrise. Having humans in your field of view is an advanced thing and can be hard to handle unless you really know the person well.

5) Lay back, relax, and start loading! o not load more than two bulbs at a time; it can cause frostbite, explosions, and if not that then it definitely wears the machine out quicker. Load one, and make the loading into a dance – a dance you can eventually do automatically, while tripping. Then you can get into a rhythm where the loading just seems to happen for you and you interpret this occuring in various ways – as the machine performing some sort of task autonomously, etc. Enter the nos bubble.

6) Try moving to the music; try just relaxing all of your muscles; try communicating without words, try anything, it’ll be different on nos. Keep an eye on  your stash so that when the inevitable end comes you’ll be mentally prepared. Make sure nothing upsets you emotionally or this trip could turn into a form of escapism – then you WON’T BE ABLE TO STOP!

Don’t get into deep conversations – you won’t have the short term memory to make them work. Especially avoid talking to anyone NOT on nos as they will not understand your simple ways. Shun them, thus:

a) feign attempt to understand

b) Furrow your brow in imaginary confusion

c) Shrug your shoulders and get straight back into it, avoiding further eye contact. They can’t invade your reality when you control your senses. This is the best way to hold your machine whilst inhaling.

Laugh, dance, explore your psyche…It’s all good. Unfortunately, it’ll always end in this:

Luckily, nos is the only thing that’s worth cleaning up because, depending on how disgraceful you got the night before, usually you’ve left behind a number of fresh bulbs. Once these are spoken for, collect your bulbs and try to recycle them somewhere – stockpile them until you can. There’s a whole lot of metal we’re wasting just to get high otherwise.

FOr an idea of what Nitrous Taking can look like from the inside out, watch this:

Destino – Salvador Dali & Disney

Nos inhalation 101 and this article are just the basics. If you want to have a good trip read this, and if you want to make sure you don’t hurt yourself read this.

Note: All photos are fabrications for education purposes only, you betcha.