登录  
 加关注
查看详情
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

富贵而名摩灭不可胜记,唯俶傥非常之人生焉

世有大勇者,猝然临之而不惊,无故加之而不怒,此其所挟持者甚大,而其志甚远也

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Originally posted in /r/PhilosophyofScience.  

2010-12-05 12:03:40|  分类: 他科之璞可以攻玉 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

Originally posted in /r/PhilosophyofScience.

On the Philosophy sub-reddit a few days ago, a link to a survey of 3226 philosophers inquiring of their philosophical beliefs was posted. 56% of the respondents were faculty members and 26% were graduate students. I thought it would be interesting to compare how the philosophical beliefs of Philosophers of Science (PoSs) compared with those of Philosophers of Mathematics (PoMs) and Philosophers of Biology and general philosophers (PGs) [EDIT: Note that by general philosophers, I mean ALL philosophers here]. I have to admit I wasn't familiar with all of the terms used in the survey but have provided links to relevant information. If anyone wants to provide one or two sentence descriptions of any of them, I would be happy to put them up in the results. Below I have highlighted only the results where there is a significant difference in response between the three groups.

  1. A priori knowledge. PoSs (55%) believe in a priori knowledge significantly less than PoMs (69%) and PGs (71%) do. EDIT: Philosophers of Biology : 45%.

  2. Abstract objects : nominalism v platonism. PoSs (26%) were considerably less likely than PGs (39%) to be platonists and far less likely than PoMs (60%). EDIT: Only 13% of Philosophers of Biology are platonists. So this Philosopher of Mathematics and this Philosopher of Biology walk into a bar ....

  3. Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?. Both PGs (41%) and PoMs (46%) favoured aesthetic value as being objective while only (34%) of PoSs did so.

  4. Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?. Increasingly favoured externalism from PGs (43%) -> PoSs (49%) -> PoMs (54%).

  5. Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?. No big differences. Compatibilism was dominant (~60%).

  6. God: theism or atheism? All predominantly atheist (~74%) but the PoSs had far fewer theists (3%) than the other two groups. PoMs had 20% theists. EDIT: 89% of Philosophers of Biology are atheists.

  7. Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism? Striking difference between PoMs who marginally favoured rationalism (37%) and PoSs who strongly favoured empiricism (56%). EDIT: Philosophers of Biology strongly favoured empiricism (79%). Those guys are seriously earthy.

  8. Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean? Both PoSs and PoMs (40%) were substantially more Humean than PGs (25%). Edit : Philosophers of Biology (53%)

  9. Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? Biggest difference here was between the PoSs who were predominantly moral anti-realists (47%) while only 28% PGs were.

  10. EDIT: Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism? Pro physicalism: PoSs (74%), PoMs (43%) and PGs (56%). Philosophers of Biology : 87%. Serious business.

  11. Newcomb's problem. PoMs (43%) favour two boxes more than the PGs (31%) do.

  12. Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?. Most striking difference was the favouring of the biological view by PoSs (27%) against the PoMs (9%).

  13. Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? Most notable result was that the PoMs were far less willing to offer any opinion on the whole topic than either PGs or PoS.

  14. Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism? The main result here is that PoSs were considerably more willing to accept an alternative to scientific realism (alternatives = 40%) than the other two groups (~25%) EDIT: Interestingly, the epistemologists were seriously realist (84%).

  15. EDIT: Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death? Huge differences here with the PoMs who overwhelmingly were either of no opinion or believed there were was no fact of the matter (43%) while PGs and PoSs who felt the same only constituted 17%. (Thanks to nebiz and drunkentune for explanations)

  16. Time: A-theory or B-theory? The dominant answer for all groups was "other" but the POMs accepted B-theory (40%) significantly more than the PGs (26%).

  17. Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible? PoMs want to believe in their metaphysical possibility (29%) somewhat more than PoSs (17%) do.

Humorous side-note : the percentage of Social and Political Philosophers who answered the Logic question as "insufficiently familiar with the issue" (31%) was more than 2.5 times the average. (EDIT: Ok ok I'm being facetious)

this was a cool read, but it kind of enforces my big problem with philosophy, which is: for every mega-smart dude there is an equally mega-smart dude which claims the opposite.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 7 分/分8 分/分9 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (7 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 7 分/分8 分/分9 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

You are describing the same problem I had (and still have) with philosophy. I tried to see it like a science. I wanted consensus and verification against observation and laws. While I think ultimately a science of the mind will take the place of philosophy, we are a very long way away from that.

So in the mean time , I see philosophy like a craft - I am training my brain to manipulate bits of knowledge into a picture that fits with my goals of knowledge. I am not accepting my belief on blind faith - I am fashioning it into an organised structure in my mind. I am understanding why I believe. Just as there are many ways to build the same house and there are many different house designs that can meet requirements, so too personal belief systems.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
daemin 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (4 children)

daemin 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

With philosophy you do end up eliminating some options over time. For example, there aren't many true Cartesian dualists around these days.

The real problem is that anything that Philosophy studies that becomes empirically justifiable splits into a new science. As you said, philosophy of mind will eventually become a science. In fact, I think we are seeing this already, what with cognitive science. Whats left over are things that either have not been sufficiently developed yet to become empirical, or things which are in principal not empirically discernible.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[+] (3 children)

drunkentune 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Demarcation between science and non-science can't be reduced to science - so even if the sphere of science were to subsume most of philosophy, there's still the demarcation problem ... along with ethics, political philosophy, different interpretations of probability theory, and logic.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 3 分/分4 分/分5 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (2 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 3 分/分4 分/分5 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Quine would argue that there is nothing more than science. There is no non-science. There is a vast multitude of logically plausible webs of belief. With a suitably developed science of the mind, we could evaluate those webs of belief that are constructed more rationally than others. Circular argument, you say? Science validating itself? Quine says science needs no higher justification. We accept science as reality and admit our fallability.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (1 child)

drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

I suppose to couch your language in Popperian terms, we can incorporate metaphysics into science if we broaden the scientific enterprise to include statements that are criticizable in principle, which includes ethics, political philosophy, rules of logic, and even this very principle - which is itself open to criticism.

In that case, no immediate disagreement here.

The demarcation between science and non-science between criticizable and non-criticizable statements does leave out non-criticizable statements, however.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (0 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Quine without the hard edges and an another.

Although Quine's Replacement Naturalism is not widely accepted, a more modest descendant of his view is extremely popular. This view, Cooperative Naturalism, holds that, while there are evaluative questions to pursue, empirical results from psychology concerning how we actually think and reason are essential or useful for making progress in addressing evaluative questions.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
caks 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (1 child)

caks 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Science slowly tells us what is probably true. Philosophy slowly tells us what probably isn't. :)

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (0 children)

drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

... and probability theory tells us that the probability of universal statements (scientific theories) approaches zero.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
daemin 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[+] (4 children)

daemin 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[-]

You get the same problem in science, though. Just look at physics, with its split between people who think string theory is the way to go, and the people who think string theory is stupid and isn't testable/not science/etc.

Or those who put their money on the many worlds interpretation of QM versus the Copenhagen interpretation.

Or the divide between Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution.

Or the heliocentric versus geocentric theories.

Or... well, you get the idea.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (3 children)

mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Or the divide between Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution.

Well, at least they have that one worked out. No one believes in Lamarck any more... Oh, wait... never mind.

Or the heliocentric versus geocentric theories.

One would hope. If those crazy guys on YouTube talking about the Earth expanding someday get published in Nature, I'm going to lose my faith in Science (cue Sting music)...

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
daemin 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (2 children)

daemin 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Well, my point was that when you look back over the history of science, its portrayed as this nice, orderly, logical progression of ideas. It looks that way because we don't really bother to talk about how, at the time the currently excepted theory was published, there were competing theories.

So his issue with philosophy (two mega smart dudes saying contradictory things) is something that happens in science as well. Its just not as apparent, because generally, in science, the old guard dies off and the theory with them, whereas its very hard to put the final nail in a philosophical theory, though it does happen.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

That's Kuhn, alright; the authors of science textbooks in each subsequent generation give a history of science that confirms the currently-leading paradigm. I'm not sure if this works the same for philosophy textbooks.

That's mostly because they're all bullocks.

;-)

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

I hear you. And my point was it seems that recently even those theories that were thought deader than a doornail have recently made a comeback. Not only Lamarckianism but also the Cosmological Constant and several others. I was (half) joking about geocentric models... I'm not about to go off looking for the Hollow Earth, but then I wouldn't be 100% surprised if someone found it.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
nelsongauthier 4 分/分5 分/分6 分/分 11 months ago[+] (6 children)

nelsongauthier 4 分/分5 分/分6 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Awesome comparison, late-to-the-party sheep dude.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
nebiz 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (5 children)

nebiz 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

how exactly do we define 'late' and 'party' here?

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 6 分/分7 分/分8 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (4 children)

drunkentune 6 分/分7 分/分8 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

No language-philosophy claptrap allowed; defining words is the mind-killer.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Note : Couldn't find claptrap in my legal dictionary. :P

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
nebiz 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (2 children)

nebiz 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Props for dune reference. I read that book quarterly.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (1 child)

drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Here's an ebook version.

I have the rest of the series if you're interested ...

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
nebiz 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

nebiz 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Awesome, thanks dude... I didn't really like the rest of the series, but Dune is my holy book.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
nebiz 3 分/分4 分/分5 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (1 child)

nebiz 3 分/分4 分/分5 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Cool post. Question number 15 addresses whether a body teletransporter (teleporting machine) would result in death of your current consciousness and creation of a new identical consciousness or whether your consciousness is preserved throughout the process.

I think most people either ask this question themselves around 14 years old or hear it from a friend and build their own rational explanation (or don't find it interesting). It was introduced to me through a friend -- the strange thing is that I consider him very unwise and very intelligent, making me question where he got this idea in the first place. Don't know why this is important? Don't worry.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

drunkentune 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[-]

There's a short animation (set to music) about the problem here. It's an interesting thought experiment ... just not something I lose any sleep over.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
Bitterfish 5 分/分6 分/分7 分/分 11 months ago[+] (6 children)

Bitterfish 5 分/分6 分/分7 分/分 11 months ago[-]

On Zombies - I am a mathematician in training, and I for one keep a crowbar in my room.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (5 children)

drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

I keep mine for headcrabs.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
[deleted] 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[+] (2 children)

[deleted] 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[-]

I thought that mathematicians get headcrabs from thinking problem that is too hard for them.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
rednukleus 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (1 child)

rednukleus 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

It seemed to me that the headcrabs came from acting without thinking on a problem that was too hard for them.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
[deleted] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

[deleted] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

It seemed to me that the headcrabs came from acting without thinking

Just like normal grabs.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
tom83 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

tom83 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

thanx for explaining what a headcrab is.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
Bitterfish 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

Bitterfish 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Well, that's physicists.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
B-Con 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[+] (1 child)

B-Con 2 分/分3 分/分4 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Hi, sixbillionthsheep,

You really do a good job of kneading together a lot of information on these topics for the rest of us. Nice work. :-)

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Thanks for your kind remarks B-Con. I find sharing with others my condensed picture of what I have found out a rewarding way to learn.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
cycnus 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[+] (1 child)

cycnus 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Thanks a lot for compiling this list with all the relevant references. This is very useful to me.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (0 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Welcome. Was useful to my thinking too.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (11 children)

drunkentune 1 分/分2 分/分3 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

I'm interested in how readers on /r/PhilofSci/ would classify themselves. I'll give a quick rundown of my own opinions:

  1. No a priori knowledge.
  2. Nominalism.
  3. Subjective aesthetic value.
  4. Justification does not exist other than as a psychological state of mind.
  5. Compatibilist if the universe were deterministic, but believe there future is open and indeterministic.
  6. Atheism.
  7. Neither empiricism or rationalism.
  8. Don't really care if Humean or non-Humean, but lean towards non-Humean.
  9. Kantian moral realist.
  10. Don't care much about physicalism or non-physicalism. Not my area of study.
  11. I side with Nozick.
  12. Don't care.
  13. Classical liberalism from Hayek and Popper.
  14. A particular version of scientific realism.
  15. I side with the other PoSs.
  16. Convention to use B-series when discussing existential statements.
  17. Inconceivable.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (6 children)

reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

  1. Agreed

  2. Agreed

  3. Agreed

  4. It's complicated

  5. The two are compatible, but truly neither exists

  6. Atheism

  7. Rationalism is nothing but a special case of empiricism

  8. No true distinction

  9. moral anti-realist

The rest: Don't care.

We seem to agree on enough of the basics that we might be able to have productive discussion.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (5 children)

drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

We don't need to agree to have a productive conversation.

The following example illustrates this point: Herodotus tells the story of the Persian King Darius the First, who, wanting to meet Greeks that burned their dead ...

... summoned the Greeks living in his land, and asked them for what payment the would consent to eat up their fathers when they died. They answered that nothing on earth would induce them to do so. Then Darius summoned the ... Callathians, who do eat their fathers, and he asked them in the presence of the Greeks, who had the help of an interpreter, for what payment they would consent to burn the bodies of their fathers when they died. And they cried out aloud and implored him not to mention such an abomination. (Herodotus, Inquiries, III, 38.)

It was only when the two groups were brought together and encountered a conflicting system of what was considered morally right that both groups realized that their moral beliefs were not universally upheld. This does not mean that two conflicting groups must come to an agreement at the end of a dialectical conversation, only that progress comes through conflicting ideas.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (4 children)

reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

True enough that a productive conversation may not be predicated by agreement on the matter. However, there are wide implications from the most basic concepts in philosophy, e.g., a Platonist's understanding of meaning is far removed from the nominalist's understanding. There are many topics in philosophy that would be very fruitless for me to discuss with a Platonist since our disagreement would ultimately arise from the Platonism/nominalism dichotomy, and we would fumble around until we found this fundamental principle to be the source of our disagreement. More advanced distinctions could warrant no discussion if we did not agree on the priors.

That being said, I don't mind arguing Platonism with a Platonist, but there are certain conversations that cannot take place until the interlocuters agree on the nature of abstract objects.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (3 children)

drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

I disagree.

It would be fruitless to discuss concepts with someone that does not understand the concept, or someone that refuses to engage in an open and honest discussion, or someone that resorts to violence when their beliefs are threatened by criticism. But agreement on prior basic beliefs is not necessary. Tentative acceptance of basic beliefs in order to derive contradictions or consistency, perhaps.

I would even posit that agreement on the rules of logic is far from necessary. Of course the conversation would be immensely difficult, but communication would be far from incommensurable.

Even right now, we fundamentally disagree on the issue at hand. We may not come to an agreement (I'm not here to evangelize), but I find this conversation immensely productive. It's a learning experience for the both of us.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (1 child)

reddituser780 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

Okay, you make many good points, so let us consider an example.

Suppose I were to argue on the evaluation of a piece of art with someone who believes that beauty is an objective concept. We could both make cases for our evaluations of the piece's goodness, but I will be arguing from a subjective position and s/he from an objective position. How could one of us possibly make a case to present to the other with any chance of acceptance? Ultimately, I will criticize his position from its basis in objectivity, and at that point we are no longer discussing the artwork, but the fundamental concept behind our opinions.

In a similar way, I could not argue with Socrates about the concept of justice, since he believes justice has a "form," where as I would first have to define justice according to its nominal designations before I could begin to discuss. The conversation would regress to Socrates and I discussing the merits of Platonism rather than justice itself.

Since you and I agree on nominalism, we can define our terms and find heuristic value in that. Socrates would deny that I have the right to supersede the "form" of justice with my own descriptions, thus leading to an "unproductive" discussion, at least with respect to the original concept.

I suppose it is true that Socrates and I could disagree on the nature of abstract objects and still continue to discuss the a posteriori concepts and still gain value from it. But all I intended is that with a nominalist we could move forward to more oblique concepts (what I called productivity), whereas with a Platonist the discussion would revert back to the fundamental principles behind (which could still be productive, but not in the way that I had originally intended).

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

drunkentune 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

Ah, interesting idea, but I see nothing wrong with discussing the merits of Platonism. Does it survive intense and legitimate criticism of its coherence, its metaphysics, its relevance? I don't think so. Others may disagree. It's an interesting way of viewing art, that's for sure, but many things are interesting.

I also see nothing wrong with abandoning the topic under discussion to talk about the relative strength of each person's background knowledge. It would be tangential, but the question then is of available time.

In fact, I think discussing these "fundamental principles" is of the utmost importance. If we accept the same "fundamental principles" and they are coherent, we'll arrive at similar results. These aren't much interest to me when having a productive (as in a learning experience) discussion. We learn far more about the set of available opinions on a topic and our own basic beliefs through disagreement rather than agreement.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[+] (0 children)

mjk1093 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago[-]

This is going to be a longish reply because I'm conflicted about some of these...

  1. We do have some a priori stuff hardwired into our brains. Trouble is, it's often wrong.

  2. I lean towards Ontological Maximalism/Modal Realism/Mathematical Realism, which is a kind of Platonism (stretching the definitions a bit). However I realize if I take the second position I describe in question 5, that negates this.

  3. Subjective, with neurological caveats (see the book Concilience).

  4. Modern life requires externalism to function, but it causes all sorts of problems (Principal-Agent problems, among others).

  5. Half of me sides with Heidegger (and Nietzsche) that this is a meaningless question, in that Determinists and Libertarians make the same mistake - thinking of the person as a subject who somehow stands outside the cosmos -either as a puppet of that cosmos or as a free agent. In reality we are totally inside the cosmos so asking if a human has free will is meaningless. There is only one Will, but we are a part of it. The other part of me sides with Lacan (and Hegel, sort of?) and thinks that all systems have a gap which fails to close and the consciousness exactly is that gap (implying some sort of free will).

  6. Depends on which cosmos you find yourself in (in keeping with Modal Realism).

  7. I'm with Kant on this one. You need both.

  8. I'm against Hume (odd since I like Meillassoux who's a big Hume fan). I think induction is vaid if it leads to the discovery of a mechanism. Still, Hume's warnings about absolutizing any knowledge should be heeded, but not to the point that we begin doubting things just for the sake of doubt. That would be its own sort of dogmatism.

  9. I haven't studied moral philosophy, so I'll pass on this one.

  10. Same issue as #5, in my book.

  11. Newcomb's is a true paradox which shows that an omniscient diety is impossible.

  12. I wish I knew. If pressed, I would give a Buddhist answer, but I also don't think Buddhism makes much sense once you delve into it.

  13. Right now I'm in favor of either extreme. The only thing you get in the middle of the road is run over. Let different groups try out different social structures. See which attracts more people. Universal government should only deal with universal problems. Unfortunately today there are lots of those. Perhaps in the future if the human race survives there will be more room for experimentation.

  14. Instrumentalism. But that goes for things we think we observe as well.

  15. Survival if such a device is possible. But the mere fact we can raise such questions about this kind of a device points to its impossibility.

  16. Not sure. Time has me stumped. At least I'm in good company in that regard.

  17. I'm afraid we are the Zombies. If by some chance we're not (if we're the "gap" in the system that fails to close), then any created Zombie would immediately turn into one of us.

votehash', null, event)"<
votehash', null, event)"<
sixbillionthsheep [S] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [+] (0 children)

sixbillionthsheep [S] 0 分/分1 分/分2 分/分 11 months ago* [-]

My beliefs are mostly not well-formed enough to contribute meaningfully. I also tend to the believe some of the labels mean different things to different people.

_5. Perhaps my most controversial belief relates to free will. I cannot accept compatibilism. Seems like a lame half-way option when you can't get comfortable with the common sense unpalatibility of determinism. I am a libertarian (although I don't associate with many of this term's political implications) with no (present) scientific justification.

_14. On the scientific realism question, I associate most closely with instrumentalism which makes me a scientific anti-realist I guess

  评论这张
 
阅读(455)| 评论(0)

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2018