2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
% Philosophical Survey
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a few thoughts on my answers to PhilPapers excellent [survey] for
|
|
|
|
philosophers. I'll explain my positions somewhat and almost certainly go into
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
more details in future articles [citation needed].
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philosophically, my strongest early influence comes from Satanism and
|
|
|
|
Discordianism. I tried to, but never really got Nietzsche and felt very much at
|
|
|
|
home when reading Robert Anton Wilson. Later on, I picked up many Buddhist
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
influences (Zen at first, later mostly Theravada) and some Taoism. I belong to
|
|
|
|
no school of thought and my belief system is very idiosyncratic, with most
|
|
|
|
pieces coming from Theravada Buddhism, Discordianism and different schools of
|
|
|
|
Rationality (mostly Bayesian, though).
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was motivated at first by fascinating problems, then making sense of madness
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
and currently understanding consciousness and fate[^why_fate].
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[^why_fate]:
|
|
|
|
To clarify, I'm not interested in "What is fate?", but "Why do I perceive
|
|
|
|
the world ordered in a way that is consistent with fate?".
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
For me, the most important philosophers are the Buddha (who I believe to be
|
|
|
|
fiction and do not identify with Siddharta Gautama), for the three principles of
|
|
|
|
[anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta),
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
[anicca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca) and
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and
|
|
|
|
[Wang Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
action. Without those, no understanding of the world is ever
|
|
|
|
possible.[^understanding]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[^understanding]:
|
|
|
|
Interestingly, I don't believe anymore that these 4 are necessarily all
|
|
|
|
correct, but only that they forced me to think about my mind and behaviour
|
|
|
|
in a way to break through very serious misconceptions. I hope to clarify
|
|
|
|
some point in the future what I think about each of them, once I worked them
|
|
|
|
out in more detail and cleared up several problems I'm having right now.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey
|
|
|
|
======
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A priori knowledge?
|
|
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. There is no such thing as knowledge without experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Abstract objects do not exist, but neither do particular ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subjective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, as a priori knowledge does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. There is no such thing as a distinction between mind and environment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skepticism, very similar to the most common Gnostic position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no free will. Determinism is also provably false. Make of that what you
|
|
|
|
will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God: theism or atheism?
|
|
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
For a time, I thought that certain concepts could be justifiably believed that
|
|
|
|
might be called "god", so that, under certain perspectives, you could call me a
|
|
|
|
theist. I now realized that I was never justified in *even asking the question*.
|
|
|
|
There is simply no evidence in need of an explanation to bring in the god
|
|
|
|
hypothesis, so having any believes in that regard is mistaken, including a
|
|
|
|
rejection of god.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly lean towards empiricism. I consider it very important, but it seems to
|
|
|
|
be not exhaustive. I'm still open to alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relativism. There's no such thing as separate knowledge and certainly no
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
objective knowledge, at least not in any meaningful way.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humean, in the sense that there are no objective laws of nature. All order is
|
|
|
|
fictitious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logic: classical or non-classical?
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very strongly non-classical. Classical logic is absolutely bankrupt and should
|
|
|
|
be abandoned asap. I am strongly leaning towards
|
|
|
|
[dialetheism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism) and even
|
|
|
|
[trivialism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivialism). (A challenge: if you
|
|
|
|
believe trivialism is false, find an argument a trivialist can't see as support
|
|
|
|
for trivialism.)
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
However, more fundamentally, the basic *assumptions* of logic, especially
|
|
|
|
definite, discrete truth values, seem very questionable to me. I suspect that
|
|
|
|
most problems in logic today, like the Liar's paradox, Curry's paradox, the
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
debate around contradictions and so on, really derive from an
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
oversimplification or basic misconception about what is exactly *meant* by truth
|
|
|
|
and a discrepancy with what we actually *want* it to be.
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
Mental content: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Externalism. Again, there is no distinction between mind and world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral nihilism. There is no such thing as morality and you should abandon the
|
|
|
|
very concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
Naturalism, in the sense that there is no "magic" or fundamental "mystery" that
|
|
|
|
is unresolvable. I strongly doubt that proponents of this view actually
|
|
|
|
believe it or understand what they are saying. As such, the distinction seems to
|
|
|
|
be "understands what an explanation is" and "doesn't", so having a position on
|
|
|
|
this is probably silly.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mind: Anti-physicalism or physicalism?
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
No form of pluralism holds up even under mild scrutiny, so they can be safely
|
|
|
|
rejected. But I simply don't see how physicalism ever *could* explain the
|
|
|
|
subjective experiences of the mind, so I'm fairly skeptical of this view, too.
|
|
|
|
This is, of course, a statement about my understanding and not about the world,
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
so physicalism may very well be right. It is, after all, currently the best
|
|
|
|
model in existence. I strongly suspect, though, that a major revolution will be
|
|
|
|
necessary and that certain universal assumptions, like the idea of a "particle"
|
|
|
|
in physics a century ago, are fundamentally broken. I have no idea *which*
|
|
|
|
assumptions these may be, however.
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To further clarify, I fully support that "the mind is what the brain does" and
|
|
|
|
there is no such thing as a separate mind floating around somewhere, but I feel
|
|
|
|
that a pure algorithmic description of the brain can't explain *all* aspects of
|
|
|
|
the mind, regardless of computability.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cognitivism. As mentioned, I'm a moral nihilist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Again, moral nihilism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
The only two reasons to ever pick two boxes, as I see it, are that you either
|
|
|
|
don't trust the oracle, in which case you don't understand the question, or that
|
|
|
|
you think you can break causality, in which case, good luck with that and let me
|
|
|
|
know if you succeed.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. Again, moral nihilsm. Though I have a lot of sympathy for virtue
|
|
|
|
ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of those, mostly qualia theory. Otherwise nondualism. The question is far from
|
|
|
|
being answered, but anything that rejects the subjective reality of experience
|
|
|
|
is simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
Depends on what you mean by "self". One "self" has a name, a job, status,
|
|
|
|
friends, memories and so on. This one is linguistically constructed. Another has
|
|
|
|
experiences. I have no idea how it works.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. All fail. Solving problems through ideology never works. Solve them
|
|
|
|
through experiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?
|
|
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unsure, though Frege seems to be sensible. I haven't thought much about this
|
|
|
|
problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?
|
|
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-realism. There is no objective law to be discovered, only new ones to be
|
|
|
|
invented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rebirth. Literally. (Similarly to sleep.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: A-theory or B-theory?
|
|
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2011-02-20 21:58:56 +01:00
|
|
|
A-theory. B-theory can be useful, but is fundamentally false.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-13 23:23:33 +02:00
|
|
|
Trolley problem: switch or don't switch?
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither, in the sense that there is no such thing as something one "ought" to
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
do. Realistically, I would freeze up and let the default happen, like pretty
|
|
|
|
much everybody would.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither, really. I have a lot of sympathy for social constructivism, but would
|
|
|
|
probably just reject the concept of truth altogether. Everything is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2010-11-05 04:22:21 +01:00
|
|
|
The Zombie position can be separated into two distinct ideas, a strong and a
|
|
|
|
weak one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The strong (and original) position is that of zombies being externally
|
|
|
|
absolutely identical. You couldn't, through no experiment whatsoever, figure out
|
|
|
|
if you are dealing with a zombie or not. Neither could the zombie themselves.
|
|
|
|
This is Chalmers' position and complete bonkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A weaker position, however, is far more interesting. Exactly how necessary is
|
|
|
|
consciousness, really? Could you build something that does more or less the same
|
|
|
|
things as a human, e.g. can reason, use memory, simulate outcomes, talk and so
|
|
|
|
on, but is completely unconscious? Maybe. I strongly suspect that most aspects
|
|
|
|
of the human mind can be implemented in an unconscious way (or already are). As
|
|
|
|
such, assuming all people at all times to be conscious is almost certainly
|
|
|
|
false. Exactly what role consciousness plays, however, I don't know.
|
2010-07-13 23:20:19 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[survey]: http://philpapers.org/surveys/
|