From b393b0d17188be0589c930555dfa682a83bad3ed Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: muflax Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:58:56 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] minor updates to survey --- src/reflections/survey.pdc | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/reflections/survey.pdc b/src/reflections/survey.pdc index 568057d..fc72174 100644 --- a/src/reflections/survey.pdc +++ b/src/reflections/survey.pdc @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Just a few thoughts on my answers to PhilPapers excellent [survey] for philosophers. I'll explain my positions somewhat and almost certainly go into -more details in separate articles. +more details in future articles [citation needed]. Background ========== @@ -10,10 +10,10 @@ 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 -influences (many distinctly Zen) 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). +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). I was motivated at first by fascinating problems, then making sense of madness and currently understanding consciousness and fate[^why_fate]. @@ -22,11 +22,12 @@ and currently understanding consciousness and 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?". -In my opinion, the two most important philosopher are the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, -for the three principles of [anatta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta), +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), [anicca](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicca) and -[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and [Wang -Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and +[dukkha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha), and +[Wang Yangming](http://www.iep.utm.edu/wangyang/) for the unity of knowledge and action. Without those, no understanding of the world is ever possible.[^understanding] @@ -117,7 +118,7 @@ for trivialism.) 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 -debate around the contradictions and so on, really derive from an +debate around contradictions and so on, really derive from an oversimplification or basic misconception about what is exactly *meant* by truth and a discrepancy with what we actually *want* it to be. @@ -148,11 +149,11 @@ 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, -so physicalism may very well be right. It is, after all, currently the basic -model in existence. I strongly suspect, though, that a major revolution, similar -to quantum physics, 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. +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. 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 @@ -193,7 +194,9 @@ is simply wrong. Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -None. There is no self and no personal identity. +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. Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism? -------------------------------------------------------------- @@ -221,7 +224,7 @@ Rebirth. Literally. (Similarly to sleep.) Time: A-theory or B-theory? --------------------------- -Unsure. I'm not familiar with either. +A-theory. B-theory can be useful, but is fundamentally false. Trolley problem: switch or don't switch? ----------------------------------------